Bill Overview
Title: SAFE Laboratories Act
Description: This bill prohibits federal assistance to the Wuhan Institute of Virology or any other laboratory located in a country determined to be a foreign adversary, including China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran.
Sponsors: Rep. Stewart, Chris [R-UT-2]
Target Audience
Population: global scientific community connected with adversary nations
Estimated Size: 500
- The primary target population will include researchers and workers at laboratories in the listed foreign adversary countries who currently or potentially receive U.S. federal funding.
- Scientists and researchers affiliated with projects funded by U.S federal aid in adversary countries might face job uncertainty or funding challenges.
- The bill may indirectly affect collaborations between U.S. scientists and those in the mentioned adversarial nations.
- Research institutions in countries classified as foreign adversaries (China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran) that depend on U.S. funding for specific scientific projects will be directly impacted.
- The bill could also affect the scientific community globally by changing the landscape of international collaborations and research funding practices.
Reasoning
- The primary impact of the SAFE Laboratories Act will be felt by researchers and institutions involved in collaborative international research with foreign adversary countries, particularly China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran.
- U.S.-based researchers who rely on data and partnerships from the aforementioned countries will face immediate challenges, such as finding new collaborators or cutting-edge technology previously accessible through these partnerships.
- The policy's budgetary constraints suggest that only a limited number of projects are directly impacted, but secondary impacts may propagate through the scientific community, adapting collaborative strategies and possibly prioritizing domestic research collaborations.
- Based on the policy's global and U.S. target populations, it is expected that over time, the wider scientific community might diversify research collaborations or shift focus towards non-adversary nations, slightly influencing wellbeing scores upwards as stability is regained.
Simulated Interviews
Research Scientist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My collaboration with the lab in China has been mutually beneficial, but I understand the national security concerns. I am anxious about the impact on my research.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Genomics Researcher (Research Triangle Park, NC)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The funding helped us access precious data. Losing it means rethinking our resource and data strategy but might push us to innovate locally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
Academic Researcher (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I understand national security, the policy might inadvertently stifle scientific brevity. But perhaps it encourages strength in U.S.-centric networks.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
PhD Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a student, I'm worried about losing access to crucial data and prolonged project timelines. The policy means uncertainty, but perhaps later stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm in favor of securing national interests. This opens new avenues for domestic research collaborations, potentially raising innovation within the U.S.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Clinical Research Coordinator (New Haven, CT)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It complicates our current trials, requiring us to tap into non-traditional and possibly more localized resources, which might not be bad in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Biomedical Engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might initially slow our collaborative work, but may refocus efforts towards domestic tech development to offset international changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Biochemist (Cambridge, MA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Losing unique data like this is hard. We'll need to improvise, which might hinder progress, but encourage creativity if tackled correctly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 10 |
Postdoc Scientist (Boston, MA)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The curtailment of funds limits our data access, pushing us to innovate elsewhere, which is frustrating but mildly exciting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
Assistant Professor (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm at the cusp of important research impacted by this policy, it's daunting, but re-strategizing may forge new pathways domestically.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $4500000 (Low: $3500000, High: $6500000)
Year 3: $4000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $6000000)
Year 5: $3500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $5500000)
Year 10: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Stopping funding for foreign laboratories may disrupt ongoing research projects that depend on cooperation between U.S. and foreign researchers.
- The determination of which countries are considered 'foreign adversaries' could affect international diplomatic relations.
- Redirecting funds could take time, impacting research progress in the short term while opening opportunities domestically.
- Ensuring compliance with the prohibition will require establishing monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, adding administrative layers.