While the consensus in Washington has moved sharply toward defining China as part of the problem, the fact is that we cannot succeed in this war against the novel coronavirus without making China part of the solution.

The urgent challenge America faces in its battle with the coronavirus is not China. It is our own failures to mobilize a response proportionate to the threat. In a world where South Korea began testing 10,000 citizens a day within weeks of patient zero－and can now do 20,000 a day－who is still floundering with one excuse after another?

The imperative for the US today is to do everything possible to stop the coronavirus from infecting millions of our fellow citizens, killing hundreds of thousands, and crushing our society. If medical scientists in China are able to develop anti-viral drugs that mitigate the impact on the infected, should America import them? Imagine that in the next month or two Chinese scientists invent a vaccine while American authorities insist they will not have one approved for well over a year. Once it has been demonstrated to be effective in Singapore or South Korea, would the reader wait for our FDA?

If the lessons China has learned in creating a diagnostic funnel－beginning with the pervasive taking of temperatures, subjecting those with fevers to a CT scan, and if an individual is still suspected taking a swab that is then analyzed before declaring someone infected－h(huán)ave proved effective, should we refuse to learn from that experience?

In real wars, dead bodies count. In economics, real growth produces more stuff. In relations with other nations, the arrival of much-needed medical equipment for which others are desperate drowns out any words.

So in the campaign to defeat the coronavirus now, and build a foundation for preventing a pandemic caused by new novel viruses in the future, where should the US and China be engaging as partners?

The first is data－from genomic to epidemiologic. When Chinese scientists quickly sequenced the novel coronavirus genome and released it to the world, they enabled a massive global research effort. During an epidemic, rapid data-sharing during the initial outbreak enables countries to better understand the virus' behavior.

A second area of cooperation involves diagnostics and public health measures. If China developed an efficient process for screening people that could be industrially scaled and applied in airports, businesses, and schools, could the United States adopt it? Conversely, if researchers develop and validate a high-throughput diagnostic that proves to be cheaper, quicker, and more accurate, would that not be shared?

The third area is biomedical research. As scientists repeatedly affirm, collaboration in research generally leads to better outcomes. And in an era when no country maintains a monopoly on scientific creativity, collaboration on an urgent topic such as the coronavirus creates more gains than losses.