The recent all-round "encirclement and suppression" against Huawei by the United States has stimulated a lot of scientific and technological discussions in Chinese society. For example, how should the Chinese look at innovation? How should they re-examine the policy on having an "exchange market for technology"? How should the Chinese review the term "science without borders"? Observing the public opinion in China brought out a common observation. It is that the Huawei affair brought a realization to the Chinese people, detaching them from the illusion they had for United Status and making them realize that they have to build a base on their own independent innovation in order to grasp core technology. "Science without borders" is just a romantic fairy tale that does not exist in real life. Science really does have borders.

Looking from the point of the history of scientific development, the idea of "science without borders" is largely adopted as the mainstream belief of the scientific community. George Sarton, a renown American historian of science said "science is the only cause that is completely common to all mankind", and "science is essentially international and it is shared with everyone regardless of race, ethnicity and nationality, therefore it is the strongest combination to unite people in the world". According to the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, "modern science was born in Europe, but its home is the whole world." Lastly, scientist Abdus Salam said that "science is, and has always been, the common heritage of mankind, and has always been, the highest embodiment of humane internationalism."

Why is science considered to have traits like internationalism or cosmopolitanism? Looking from the history of science, this is determined by technical norms and scientific methods. They guarantee the objectivity, truthfulness, universality and consistency of scientific knowledge. They also guarantee that sooner or later, science can be accepted and utilized by every country and nation in the world, as it is common treasure to all mankind. As stated in the Charter of Scientists, "science is to observe and discover the truth through the correct and valid reasoning for its results... Due to such basic nature of science, it becomes a special international undertaking." The UNFAO resolution states that "natural science is a productive area of international cooperation. Because it is international in itself, the basic laws of physics and biology are generally accepted." Therefore, the internationalism or cosmopolitanism of science is determined more by the normative structure of science, that is, the spirit of science, which especially expresses the values of science such as universality, public ownership, non-profit-making and autonomy.

However, the notion of "science without borders" is often challenged in real world. For example, scientific research can be used not only for bringing benefits, but also for killing or destroying mankind.

Be it the "Manhattan Project" of the United States or the Chinese "Two Bombs, One Satellite", many large-scale scientific projects led by countries, both at home and abroad, are inseparable from the participation of numerous scientists. As the U.S. government moved to ban Huawei, some scientific research institutions and universities in the United States have also begun to exclude some Chinese scientists or refuse applications by Chinese students to study certain science and technology majors, which resulted in rising negative sentiments for "science without borders" among the Chinese people.

How we can bridge the difference between science in the eyes of scientists and science in the eyes of different countries? From the perspective of public policy, how can the contradiction between above ideals and reality be eradicated?

Anbound researchers argued that "science" should be separated from "scientific applications". Speaking from the basic purpose and significance of scientific research, its characteristics of internationalism and cosmopolitanism cannot be denied, this is also the mainstream way people view the history of scientific development. In fact, the progress of human society, the improvement of human civilization and the development of various countries, have, to a large extent, benefited from the worldwide nature of science and the spread of scientific knowledge throughout the world. However, in specific fields, as well as in certain time and space, the application of scientific knowledge does indeed have national boundaries. For example, during World War Ⅱ, the seizure of scientists in various countries, as well as scientific applications in major scientific projects which involves national interests, reflected the strong national attributes present in scientific application. At this time, boundaries exist to govern scientists and the application of scientific knowledge.

The rise of some research universities in the United States during the period of the Cold War also provides a good example to show the scenario of "boundaries in scientific applications".

At that time, in order to defeat the Soviet Union, famous universities in the United States received huge research grants from the government, and gradually shifted their position from having a marginal focus to becoming the central core of politics and economics one. For example, from the 1950s to 1960s, Clark Kerr, a former president from University of California, Berkeley, had a foresight on the real meaning of the Cold War to American universities. He knew that in order to substantially develop military science and technology, the U.S. had to rely on highly trained scientists, engineers and other professionals. By the early 1960s, the federal government had spent about $10 billion per year on R&D. The amount of money used for U.S. Department of National Defense and IAEA accounted for more than 50% of the total expenditure. Another 10% was used for universities and research centers all over the country. However, it is worth noting that more than half of its expenditure was divided up by six universities, including Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Columbia University, University of Chicago, University of California and California Institute of Technology. More than 50% of operating expenditures for these six universities were directly supported by the U.S. federal government's financial aid.

Clark Kerr also had a clear insight to the general trend that would come into play after World War II. That is, the United States would transform from an industrial economy to a service-oriented society. Furthermore, the economic model that was originally guided by human resources and raw materials would be transformed into an economic development and prosperity model driven by professional knowledge. Universities would also be affected by such trends. High-tech companies in the United States are mainly gathered around Berkeley in the Bay Area of San Francisco and other UCLA campuses, Harvard and MIT in Massachusetts, and the surrounding areas of the University of Chicago. The function of these knowledge-intensive areas can provide us the proof that such research universities played an important role after World War II for American economy and redefined the standards of top-performing universities. All leading research universities had large-scale laboratories, employed a large number of non-teaching researchers, and used expensive research equipment funded by the government to work on group research. The universities' accomplishment of producing knowledge and the fields that professors have knowledge on was also different from those of the past. Various new topics such as nuclear engineering and Russian studies, which were both geopolitical focuses for the U.S. at that time, were added to school curriculum. Before WW Ⅱ, scholars and scientists formed the backbone of American universities. After WW Ⅱ, the mainstay was replaced by a group of loose "academic entrepreneurs", who focused their priority on flaunting their academic statuses and research achievements in order to bag financial aid. At this time, the university is no longer an ivory tower suspicious and having a gap with the government and industries, but has rather become a flexible and inclusive "multiversity".

Final analysis conclusion:

Research universities are places where scientists gather in large numbers. With respect to the development of American research universities during the Cold War, universities can be closely integrated with government-led geopolitical games in special times, and might even participate in geo politically motivated actions directly and inclusively. This further shows that from ahistorical sense, science has no borders but the same cannot be said for the application of scientific knowledge.