How Good Is Science?
By Daniel Sarewitz
“A secure, productive, and innovative America that can outcompete China is something that all 100 senators want.” So said Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), in support of the US Innovation and Competition Act. And if the number wasn’t quite 100, an impressive 68 of 100 senators (all the Democrats, 19 Republicans, and the one Independent who isn’t Bernie) agreed, voting on June 8 to pass this legislative potpourri, with provisions that range from the creation of quantum network infrastructure to the elimination of shark fin sales—but that’s the price of bipartisanship.
At the heart of that omnibus legislation sits the Endless Frontier Act, which would spend tens of billions to counter the rising economic and technological might of China. Said Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), one of the act’s original authors, “We now spend less than 1% of our GDP on basic scientific research. The Chinese Communist Party, as a percentage, spends more than twice that. We have put ourselves in the very precarious position of potentially falling behind the rest of the world in technologies and industries that will define the next century. If that happens, the days of America leading the world in scientific innovation and the days of America being the leading economic and military power in the world may be over.”
It’s as close to a political consensus as we’re likely to get these days: outcompeting China in fields such as quantum computing, clean energy, robotics, synthetic biology, and artificial intelligence is necessary both to assure our economic well-being in the face of China’s predatory, state-run economic policies, and to preserve our national security in a world where geopolitical strength is exercised in technological dominance not only in the conventional military sphere, but in the economic sphere as well. “There are only two real possibilities,” says Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS). “Either the United States will remain the preeminent global superpower or we will be replaced by China.”
https://issues.org/how-good-is-science-editors-journal-sarewitz/
