Bill Overview
Title: Stop Funding Our Adversaries Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits federal agencies from conducting or supporting, either directly or indirectly, research that will be conducted by China's government, the Chinese Communist Party, or any agent, instrumentality, or entity belonging to or controlled by either entity.
Sponsors: Rep. Herrell, Yvette [R-NM-2]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in US-China collaborative research projects
Estimated Size: 20000
- The bill targets research funding, which typically involves collaboration between U.S. and foreign institutions, potentially affecting universities, research institutions, and researchers in both countries.
- China is a major scientific powerhouse with numerous ties to U.S. academic institutions; cutting off funding can affect ongoing joint research projects.
- Federal agencies include a range of government bodies that fund research, such as the NIH, NSF, and Department of Defense.
- The halt in funding affects not only the people working directly on these projects but also potentially the industries relying on their outcomes.
Reasoning
- This policy primarily affects researchers and students involved in US-China collaborative research projects. These individuals rely on federal funding for their research, which often involves partnerships with Chinese counterparts.
- The immediate impact would be on research projects that have already been initiated, with delays or termination likely if funding is cut off.
- Individuals not directly involved in these collaborations will likely see little to no impact unless their work indirectly relies on research outcomes from such projects.
- The scope of the policy does not individually affect all American citizens but targets a specific subset within academic and research communities.
Simulated Interviews
research scientist (Boston, MA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy puts my current project in jeopardy, and it has been foundational to my career growth and aspirations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
PhD candidate (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the interruption in my research timeline and the potential difficulties in publishing my work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
policy analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the policy might protect intellectual property, but it's critical to find a balance to ensure scientific advancement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
university professor (Austin, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy may limit opportunities for my students to engage in diverse international collaborations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
retired engineer (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I see the logic in safeguarding technology, it concerns me that it might hinder scientific progress through reduced collaboration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
graduate student in Data Science (New York, NY)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy may delay my graduation if our project funding is affected. It brings a lot of uncertainty.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
biomedical researcher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.5 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might be a roadblock in quick advancements in my field, affecting drug development timelines.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
research manager (Ann Arbor, MI)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our ability to deliver on project goals might diminish, affecting not only outcomes but also our team's future funding opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 9 |
computer science researcher (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This disrupts the flow of critical data needed for my research. It's challenging but perhaps necessary for national security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
consultant (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I can see the intent to protect national interests, it might lead to a decrease in collaborative innovations across borders.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 2: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 3: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 5: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 10: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 100: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Key Considerations
- The redirection of funds might benefit local innovations instead, which could foster different technological developments within the U.S.
- Potentially slows down research progress in global rare fields due to lack of collaboration.
- There may be diplomatic and academic implications with long-term international relationship effects.