ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2024
The impact of US-China tensions on US science: Evidence from the NIH investigations.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Competition and Collaboration in the AI Race: Country-LevelDirectional Evidence for Risk Monitoring and Policy.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2026Article
- Emerging patterns, impact, and collaborative networks of global scientific output on carrageenan and digestive problems: A bibliometric analysis.Indian journal of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Bibliometric analysis of global research hotspots in ovarian cancer immunotherapy from 2014 to 2024 using CiteSpace.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Decline in US-China science: Can ophthalmology remain collaborative?Advances in ophthalmology practice and researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Amid the discourse on foreign influence investigations in research, this study examines the impact of NIH-initiated investigations starting in 2018 on U.S. scientists' productivity, focusing on those collaborating with Chinese peers. Using publication data from 2010 to 2021, we analyze over 113,000 scientists and find that investigations coincide with reduced productivity for those with China collaborations compared to those with other international collaborators, especially when accounting for publication impact. The decline is particularly pronounced in fields that received greater preinvestigation NIH funding and engaged more in U.S.-China collaborations. Indications of scientist migration and broader scientific progress implications also emerge. We also offer insights into the underlying mechanisms via qualitative interviews.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.