More Academic Groups Voice Concerns Over BIS Effort to Control Foundational Tech

The Bureau of Industry and Security should apply the “minimal” necessary level of export controls on foundational technologies to prevent impacts on U.S. academic research, universities said in comments to the agency. BIS also should reexamine which technologies it defines as “emerging” because some are already commercially widespread, a British aerospace company said.

The comments, released by BIS Nov. 30, echo previous feedback received by the agency, including calls from other academic groups and technology companies that urged caution as BIS prepares restrictions under the Export Control Reform Act (see 2011130037 and 2011020057). The universities, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said foundational technology controls should be “approached with great caution and only when absolutely necessary” because they risk impacting the availability of fundamental research.

“It is essential that fundamental research remain unhindered if the U.S. is to stay technologically competitive and free to explore the frontiers of knowledge,” MIT said. The school urged BIS to gather input from universities before imposing any controls and endorsed a November letter from several university trade groups that advocated for “adequate” academic representation on the Commerce Department’s technical advisory committees. Commerce’s Emerging Technology TAC includes at least eight academic representatives.

“BIS should assure that ETTAC involves leading researchers with expertise in the foundational technologies under consideration, as well as university officials who are charged with the enforcement of export control regulations,” said the comments, which were signed by the Association of American Universities, the American Council on Education, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities and the Council on Governmental Relations.

MIT said foundational technologies are “broadly applicable” and there is a “high” risk that the restrictions “could unintentionally interfere with desirable and important research activities.” The school said controls could “preclude the participation” of foreign students in fundamental research that involves foundational technologies. “We caution against applying export controls absent a clear threat to national security,” the school said.

A BIS spokesperson said the agency takes industry comments seriously. BIS is still reviewing the comments and does not yet have a timeline for releasing its first set of foundational technology controls, a senior Commerce Department official said in an interview last week, adding that the process had been more challenging than its emerging technology effort.

“It’s going to be tough,” the official said, pointing to the fact that many of the technologies being reviewed were once captured by export restrictions but are no longer controlled. “I think we need to account for why they have been decontrolled,” the official said. “If we're going to re-control it, we're going to need to be able to make a persuasive case externally on why we've done that.”

The official also said the agency is mindful of industry requests to impose narrow controls. “We want to do it in a way that is not using a meat-ax where a scalpel might do,” the official said. “We really take that seriously.”

In comments, BAE Systems voiced concerns about BIS’s effort to control emerging technologies. Although the defense company said it “strongly” supports a “comprehensive” export control system, it disagreed with BIS that certain artificial intelligence and data analytics technologies should be defined as “emerging.” BAE Systems said many of those technologies are already widely available, including those involving neural networks, deep learning, computer vision, speech and audio processing, AI cloud technologies, visualization and automated analysis algorithms.

“Each of these technology areas are today mature, well established, widely available as open source, and pervasively deployed across markets on a global basis,” the company said. “We believe that these technologies will continue to advance outside the United States, and that placing overly broad restrictions on the export of U.S. origin products could reduce incentives for U.S. companies to develop this technology and harm the U.S. industrial base in the long term.”