Protecting U.S. Technological Advantage
______
Committee on Protecting Critical Technologies for National Security in an Era of Openness and Competition
Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy
Committee on Science, Technology, and Law
Committee on Science, Engineering, Medicine, and Public Policy
Policy and Global Affairs
Intelligence Community Studies Board
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
Consensus Study Report
NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (W911NF-18-D-0002/W911NF18F0089) and the National Science Foundation (SMA-1946465). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-69130-7
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-69130-3
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26647
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022948221
This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Protecting U.S. Technological Advantage. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26647.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON PROTECTING CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR NATIONAL SECURITY IN AN ERA OF OPENNESS AND COMPETITION
PATRICK D. GALLAGHER, Co-chair, Chancellor, University of Pittsburgh
SUSAN M. GORDON, Co-chair, Former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence
ROBERT J. BIRGENEAU (NAS), Chancellor Emeritus and Arnold and Barbara Silverman Professor of Physics, Materials Science and Engineering, and Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley
ROBERT C. DYNES (NAS), President Emeritus, University of California; and Professor, Department of Physics, University of California, San Diego
DEBORAH FRINCKE, Associate Labs Director, National Security Programs, Sandia National Laboratories
GILBERT HERRERA (Member 2/16/2021–8/15/2021), Laboratory Fellow, Sandia National Laboratories*
LEROY E. HOOD (NAS/NAE/NAM), Senior Vice President and Chief Science Officer, Providence St. Joseph Health; and Chief Strategy Officer, Cofounder, and Professor, Institute for Systems Biology
MICHAEL J. IMPERIALE, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Michigan
J. MICHAEL MCQUADE, Special Advisor to the President, Carnegie Mellon University
JUDITH A. MILLER, Independent Consultant
RICHARD M. MURRAY (NAE), Thomas E. and Doris Everhart Professor of Control and Dynamical Systems and Bioengineering, California Institute of Technology
STAFF
GAIL E. COHEN, Senior Director, Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP), Study Director
ANNE-MARIE MAZZA, Senior Director, Committee on Science, Technology, and Law, Co–Study Director (through June 2021)
MEGHAN ANGE-STARK, Program Officer, STEP Board (through July 2021)
SOPHIE BILLINGE, Senior Program Assistant, STEP Board (through June 2022)
DAVID DIERKSHEIDE, Program Officer, STEP Board
BIANCA ESPINOSA, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Fellow, Committee on Science, Engineering, Medicine, and Public Policy
___________________
*Resigned from the committee effective August 15, 2021.
BOARD ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND ECONOMIC POLICY
ADAM B. JAFFE, Chair, Brandeis University
NOËL BAKHTIAN, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
JEFF BINGAMAN, Former U.S. Senator, New Mexico
BRENDA J. DIETRICH (NAE), Cornell University
BRIAN G. HUGHES, HBN Shoe, LLC, San Antonio, Texas
PAULA E. STEPHAN, Georgia State University
SCOTT STERN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
JOHN C. WALL (NAE), Cummins, Inc. (Retired)
JOHN L. ANDERSON (NAE), Ex Officio Member, National Academy of Engineering
VICTOR J. DZAU (NAM), Ex Officio Member, National Academy of Medicine
MARCIA MCNUTT (NAS/NAE), Ex Officio Member, National Academy of Sciences
STAFF
GAIL COHEN, Senior Director
DAVID DIERKSHEIDE, Program Officer
CLARA SAVAGE, Financial Officer
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND LAW
DAVID BALTIMORE (NAS/NAM), Co-chair, California Institute of Technology
DAVID S. TATEL, Co-chair, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, University of California, Berkeley
ELLEN W. CLAYTON (NAM), Vanderbilt University Medical Center
JOHN O. DABIRI, California Institute of Technology
JENNIFER EBERHARDT (NAS), Stanford University
FEI-FEI LI (NAE/NAM), Stanford University
JUDITH A. MILLER, Independent Consultant
MARTHA L. MINOW, Harvard Law School
KIMANI PAUL-EMILE, Fordham University
NATALIE RAM, University of Maryland Carey School of Law
LISA RANDALL (NAS), Harvard University
PAUL M. ROMER, New York University
WILLIAM B. SCHULTZ, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP
JOSHUA M. SHARFSTEIN (NAM), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
SUSAN S. SILBEY, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
GREGORY STONE, Tolles & Olson, LLP
JOHN S. COOKE, Ex Officio Member, The Federal Judicial Center
STAFF
ANNE-MARIE MAZZA, Senior Director
STEVEN KENDALL, Program Officer
DOMINIC LOBUGLIO, Senior Program Assistant
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, MEDICINE, AND PUBLIC POLICY
ALAN I. LESHNER (NAM), American Association for the Advancement of Science (Retired)
CLAIRE D. BRINDIS (NAM), University of California, San Francisco
KATHARINE G. FRASE (NAE), International Business Machines Corporation
JOHN G. HILDEBRAND (NAS), University of Arizona
EDWARD D. LAZOWSKA (NAE), University of Washington
FRANCES S. LIGLER (NAE), Texas A&M Health Sciences Center
JUANITA L. MERCHANT (NAM), University of Arizona College of Medicine
RICHARD A. MESERVE (NAE), Carnegie Institution for Science
C. PAUL ROBINSON (NAE), Sandia National Laboratories (Retired)
ROBERT F. SPROULL (NAE), University of Massachusetts at Amherst
JAMES M. TIEN (NAE), University of Miami
RUTH J. WILLIAMS (NAS), University of California, San Diego
SUSAN M. WOLF (NAM), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
JOHN L. ANDERSON (NAE), Ex Officio Member, National Academy of Engineering
VICTOR J. DZAU (NAM), Ex Officio Member, National Academy of Medicine
MARCIA MCNUTT (NAS/NAE), Ex Officio Member, National Academy of Sciences
STAFF
TOM WANG, Senior Board Director
TOM ARRISON, Senior Advisor
COLE DONOVAN, Senior Program Officer
SARAH ROVITO, Senior Program Officer
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY STUDIES BOARD
MARK M. LOWENTHAL, Co-chair, Intelligence & Security Academy, LLC
MICHAEL A. MARLETTA (NAS/NAM), Co-chair, University of California, Berkeley
JOEL BRENNER, Joel Brenner, LLC
ROBERT CARDILLO, The Cardillo Group, LLC
FREDERICK R. CHANG (NAE), Southern Methodist University
DEAN B. CHENG, The Heritage Foundation
ROBERT C. DYNES (NAS), University of California, San Diego
ROBERT A. FEIN, McLean Hospital and Harvard Medical School
HUBAN A. GOWADIA, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
MARGARET A. HAMBURG (NAM), Nuclear Threat Initiative
MIRIAM E. JOHN, Independent Consultant
ANITA K. JONES (NAE), University of Virginia (Emerita)
STEVEN E. KOONIN (NAS), New York University
CARMEN L. MIDDLETON, The Walt Disney Company
ARTHUR L. MONEY (NAE), Independent Consultant
WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF, United States Naval Academy
DAVID A. RELMAN (NAM), Stanford University and VA Palo Alto Health Care System
ELIZABETH RINDSKOPF PARKER, State Bar of California
SAMUEL S. VISNER, MITRE Corporation and Georgetown University
DAVID A. WHELAN (NAE), Cubic
STAFF
CARYN LESLIE, Acting Director
DIONNA ALI, Associate Program Officer
BRYAN BUNNELL, Research Associate
TONY FAINBERG, Senior Program Officer
NIA JOHNSON, Program Officer
CHRIS JONES, Senior Financial Manager
MARGUERITE SCHNEIDER, Administrative Coordinator
This page intentionally left blank.
Preface
U.S. leadership in technology innovation is central to our nation’s interests, including its security, economic prosperity, and quality of life. Our nation has created a science and technology ecosystem that fosters innovation, risk taking, and the discovery of new ideas that lead to new technologies through robust collaborations across and within academia, industry, and government, and our research and development enterprise has attracted the best and brightest scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs from around the world. The quality and openness of our research enterprise have been the basis of our global leadership in technological innovation, which has brought enormous advantages to our national interests.
The committee’s task was to examine and evaluate the need for boundaries or protections on the openness of scientific research and take into account the benefits and drawbacks of technology protection options. Heightened concerns about potential loss of leadership in critically important technology areas have led to increased rhetoric about the need to escalate protection and restrictions for certain technologies, but in an increasingly competitive and technology-dependent world, ensuring and protecting the nation’s ability to lead in technological innovation is of critical importance. Given changes in technology and the global, interconnected competitive environment, the committee found that protecting technologies themselves is often ineffective or even counterproductive.
Instead, the committee believes that a fundamental shift is needed—one that moves away from specific technology controls to a risk management approach that focuses on protecting U.S. advantages in technology leadership and development. Strategies are needed for maximizing our advantages, promoting the scale and speed of our research and technology innovation ecosystem, fostering a risk-taking environment, and attracting, retaining, and supporting the most talented science, engineering, and innovation workforce in the world.
The committee also recognizes that new technologies are increasingly being developed on shared platforms. These platforms speed the scope and scale of new technologies, but they also have unique vulnerabilities associated with them. The committee recommends the development of a new multisector,
multiorganizational, multinational approach to both protection and assurance of these platforms.
Legislation passed after the committee finished its deliberations—namely the CHIPS and Science Act—contains provisions that the committee hopes will facilitate its recommendations: expanding the support of the National Institute of Standards and Technology for standards capacity building and recognizing the critical importance of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) graduate students and the STEM workforce as a whole.
Collectively, our recommendations are directed at building a healthier, more effective, and more resilient research and development ecosystem.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are deeply indebted to the hard work of the committee, which reviewed papers; engaged in thoughtful deliberations with speakers from academia, industry, and government; and spent considerable time developing findings and recommendations. Invaluable help was provided by the consultant writer, Steve Olson. The report also benefited from the input of Evan Johnson and his associates, who aided with the preparation of figures in the report. We are grateful for the dedication of the National Academies staff: Gail Cohen, David Dierksheide, Anne-Marie Mazza, Meghan Ange-Stark, and Sophie Billinge. We acknowledge all with deep gratitude.
Patrick Gallagher
Susan M. Gordon
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Arthur Bienenstock, Stanford University; Vinton Cerf, Google, LLC; Jennie Hwang, H-Technologies Group, Inc.; Eric Isaacs, Carnegie Institution for Science; Marc Kastner, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Farrokh Khatibi, Qualcomm; Theodore Sizer, Nokia Bell Labs; Sridhar Tayur, Carnegie Mellon University; Mitchel Wallerstein, Baruch College of the City University of New York; and Michael Wertheimer, The Chertoff Group.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report, nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Eric Kaler, Case Western Reserve University, and Catherine Novelli, Georgetown University. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
This page intentionally left blank.
Contents
Study Purpose, Charge, and Approach
2CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIALIZATION
How Technology Development and Commercialization Have Changed
Case Study: Artificial Intelligence
Case Study: Quantum Computing and Quantum Information Science
Implications for Policy and Practice
3THE NEW COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE
The Competitive Environment in the 1950–1985 Timeframe
The Cold War National Security Competition
The Resulting Policy Landscape
The Expansion of Control Mechanisms
Implications of the New Competitive Landscape for U.S. Policies and Procedures
4THE COMPETITIVE CHALLENGE POSED BY CHINA
Features of the Competition between the United States and China
China’s Activities in Microelectronics, Artificial Intelligence, and Quantum Computing
Human Resources in the United States and China
Implications of China’s Actions for the Protection of U.S. Interests
Maximization of Strengths in Science, Research, and Technology Innovation
Developing and Attracting Talent
Identification of Strategic Technologies and Coordinated Risk Management
Tailored Approaches to the Unique Vulnerabilities Resulting from Shared Platforms
