In an effort to protect the integrity of the United States’ government-funded research, Congress is reviewing potential legislation to ban or restrict government contracts with adversarial biotechnology companies, such as BGI, a Chinese-based biotechnology firm.
The U.S. government’s policy of awarding contracts to large-scale research projects began in the 1980’s and has expanded great lengths over the years. The government’s goal is to encourage collaboration on a massive scale for the public benefit, and to drive the world-wide development of technologies and innovations.
The current list of companies receiving government contracts to conduct research includes a questionable name: BGI, a biotechnology firm based in China, with links to the Chinese Communist Party.
Experts note that while it is difficult to deny access to technology that can be used for good, it is also important to take into account the potential for abuse when granting such contracts.
The potential for abuse in the hands of a foreign power, especially one as powerful and influential as the Chinese Communist Party, is an issue of increasing concern – especially as BGI continues to expand its presence in key areas like biochemistry, genetics, bioinformatics, and synthetic biology.
In response, California Representative Jackie Speier recently introduced a bill which would bar the U.S. government from issuing contracts to adversarial biotechnology companies such as BGI. The bill would also mandate government evaluators to investigate potential relationships between the companies and foreign militaries or hostile or destabilizing foreign organizations.
With the need to protect U.S. citizens from foreign enemies’ usage of the latest in technological and biotechnological advancement, the proposed bill has great potential. It will move government policy from awarding contracts to this particular company, to instead barring them altogether, and mandating that security measures are taken when evaluating contracts with foreign firms.
Ultimately, Congress must weigh the cost of preventing the misuse of technology by adversaries against the cost of denying the U.S. government access to advanced research and development – with citizens’ security and safety as the priority.