Scientists have lost their jobs after NIH probe into foreign ties(sciencemag.org)
sciencemag.org
Scientists have lost their jobs after NIH probe into foreign ties
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/fifty-four-scientists-have-lost-their-jobs-result-nih-probe-foreign-ties
163 comments
I didn't see any specific proposed punishments in the article other than some people no longer being allowed to review articles for some journals.
Having gotten grants and attended the "if you lie about using US money it is a felony" mandatory in person talk...
Well, it's not necessarily that they had foreign grants, though it is possible that would have made them ineligible for something. But not disclosing stuff like that is really bad.
I don't know why they didn't, the reasons might be innocuous in which case I doubt there would be harsh punishments.
Or maybe they got two grants from different governments paying for the same research (big no) or maybe they were simply given money by a foreign asset that now can blackmail them into disclosing secret research that the US funded.
The article doesn't really give that level of detail so I can only say it ranges from "mistake on your taxes" bad where the repercussions are mostly financial penalities and "stole money and gave nuclear missile designs to a foreign country because of the influence of their money".
If I were to bet: they either didn't keep good track of things, are the kind of people that simply don't care about the rules enough to know they broke them (even though they don't intend harm it's definitely their fault), or they would have been ineligible for funding if they disclosed the foreign source and were too greedy to take a pass on it.
Having gotten grants and attended the "if you lie about using US money it is a felony" mandatory in person talk...
Well, it's not necessarily that they had foreign grants, though it is possible that would have made them ineligible for something. But not disclosing stuff like that is really bad.
I don't know why they didn't, the reasons might be innocuous in which case I doubt there would be harsh punishments.
Or maybe they got two grants from different governments paying for the same research (big no) or maybe they were simply given money by a foreign asset that now can blackmail them into disclosing secret research that the US funded.
The article doesn't really give that level of detail so I can only say it ranges from "mistake on your taxes" bad where the repercussions are mostly financial penalities and "stole money and gave nuclear missile designs to a foreign country because of the influence of their money".
If I were to bet: they either didn't keep good track of things, are the kind of people that simply don't care about the rules enough to know they broke them (even though they don't intend harm it's definitely their fault), or they would have been ineligible for funding if they disclosed the foreign source and were too greedy to take a pass on it.
The answer is that nothing of this seems to be a crime, and scientists are not in the business of filling reports, but doing research. If you get money from the USA, there is no law saying that you cannot get money from China. The science is the same and the money is the same. What the US is trying to do is to stop innovation and criminalize the collaboration with Chinese institutions.
The crime is signing the form saying that what you reported is true when you accepted federal money.
That's what makes it a possible felony.
If they disclosed the funding source it is possible they wouldn't have access to as many grants. But they can just... not take money that they aren't eligible for.
I'm finding it hard to drum up much sympathy for signing documents that state things you should have known weren't true.
There are valid excuses that make it more a paperwork oversight than industrial espionage for sure. But this article didn't give enough detail to know what percentage were oversights versus knowing deception.
Don't lie on paperwork you send to the feds.
That's what makes it a possible felony.
If they disclosed the funding source it is possible they wouldn't have access to as many grants. But they can just... not take money that they aren't eligible for.
I'm finding it hard to drum up much sympathy for signing documents that state things you should have known weren't true.
There are valid excuses that make it more a paperwork oversight than industrial espionage for sure. But this article didn't give enough detail to know what percentage were oversights versus knowing deception.
Don't lie on paperwork you send to the feds.
"scientists are not in the business of filling reports, but doing research."
You obviously have never worked in science.
"If you get money from the USA, there is no law saying that you cannot get money from China."
The USA does not give money to you. The NIH does. Darpa too and many others. This government institutions have their own rules and regulations.
"The science is the same and the money is the same. What the US is trying to do is to stop innovation and criminalize the collaboration with Chinese institutions."
The US is trying to control the hemorrhaging outflow of US taxpayer funded research.
You obviously have never worked in science.
"If you get money from the USA, there is no law saying that you cannot get money from China."
The USA does not give money to you. The NIH does. Darpa too and many others. This government institutions have their own rules and regulations.
"The science is the same and the money is the same. What the US is trying to do is to stop innovation and criminalize the collaboration with Chinese institutions."
The US is trying to control the hemorrhaging outflow of US taxpayer funded research.
How is it hemorrhaging, if it's scientific research that usually gets published in public journals? Or are we talking about top-secret atomic research?
As others have mentioned about different levels of research having different levels of secrecy let me tell you about some of the research I've done.
I work in HPC and people are getting into machine learning now. Lots of papers are getting published that do not contain enough information to reproduce the work and source code is held tight. That's not uncommon is a lot of the sciences. Results are public, but how to get the results are not exactly. I've also been in the engineering and physics fields. Papers there are really not reproducible. They may detail a high level overview of how to do the experiment but they leave out all the "secret sauce". This gives them an edge.
So with the other post that made the front page, just the other day, it detailed how someone got stopped at the border for lying on the visa and that that person was sending pictures and very low level detailed explanations about the lab and its setup. This is essentially the "secret sauce" we're talking about here. If these researchers want to turn their results into a company (say you invent a new drug) you can only do this if you don't tell everyone every detail (which you can't reasonably do in a 10 page journal paper).
This all is especially true for medical work and semiconductor work. The US government is funding many of these labs because they actually want them to do the low level research, make a product, and market it. You can think of it as angel investing (except you don't have to give up shares of the company). But they want it to be a US company that builds and makes the product because that helps the US economy. If the US does the "angel investing" and then the product is created in China by a Chinese company, then that investing was not nearly as useful.
I work in HPC and people are getting into machine learning now. Lots of papers are getting published that do not contain enough information to reproduce the work and source code is held tight. That's not uncommon is a lot of the sciences. Results are public, but how to get the results are not exactly. I've also been in the engineering and physics fields. Papers there are really not reproducible. They may detail a high level overview of how to do the experiment but they leave out all the "secret sauce". This gives them an edge.
So with the other post that made the front page, just the other day, it detailed how someone got stopped at the border for lying on the visa and that that person was sending pictures and very low level detailed explanations about the lab and its setup. This is essentially the "secret sauce" we're talking about here. If these researchers want to turn their results into a company (say you invent a new drug) you can only do this if you don't tell everyone every detail (which you can't reasonably do in a 10 page journal paper).
This all is especially true for medical work and semiconductor work. The US government is funding many of these labs because they actually want them to do the low level research, make a product, and market it. You can think of it as angel investing (except you don't have to give up shares of the company). But they want it to be a US company that builds and makes the product because that helps the US economy. If the US does the "angel investing" and then the product is created in China by a Chinese company, then that investing was not nearly as useful.
The article, probably because it's how the government decided to spin it, is conflating paperwork errors with everything from industrial espionage (i.e. professor tells the company paying them about research done in their lab for another company or paid for by public funds) to actual spying by sharing classified documents.
I am pretty sure it is intentionally vague so that people assume it's worse than it is since they could have just reported the numbers of people they uncovered to be doing something sinister if it fit the narrative.
But I'd lean the exact opposite direction and say that this article has nothing, on its face, to do with hemorrhaging, industrial espionage, or state espionage.
I am pretty sure it is intentionally vague so that people assume it's worse than it is since they could have just reported the numbers of people they uncovered to be doing something sinister if it fit the narrative.
But I'd lean the exact opposite direction and say that this article has nothing, on its face, to do with hemorrhaging, industrial espionage, or state espionage.
[deleted]
There’s a whole lot of science that happens in the area between “published in a public (free/open access?) journal” and “top-secret atomic research.”
The vast majority of research fits between those camps, in fact.
The vast majority of research fits between those camps, in fact.
I see, that's probably more of an issue in medical sciences than in fundamental physics where I'm coming from.
My experience with "top-secret" research is that it's usually a c r a p.
If we're talking about fundamental physics I'll mention fusion research. If you go to the DOE Chinese citizens are highly restricted around locations like NIF. You don't need any kind of clearance to work at NIF, but people have different restrictions. Same is true for CERN. China doesn't have full access to everything that happens at CERN, which is a fairly open lab.
Most research isn't classified, but that doesn't mean most research is open.
Most research isn't classified, but that doesn't mean most research is open.
You are obfuscating the point. This issue is not about researchers receiving funds from China. Its about failing to disclose that this funding has been received. The US is trying to ensure transparency in how the research that is being funded in part by the American tax payer is ultimately paid for. Should US citizens not know this? Does transparency in research funding not matter?
Please edit personal swipes out of your comments here. If another comment is wrong, it's enough to provide correcting information.
Your comment would be fine without the first sentence. (It might be even better with the last sentence, which is redundant and starts to feel like a cross-examination, but that one is not a big deal.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Your comment would be fine without the first sentence. (It might be even better with the last sentence, which is redundant and starts to feel like a cross-examination, but that one is not a big deal.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
So are you a hacker news moderator? Your comment history seems filled with comments on other peoples comments. If so can your account be labelled as such? Does hacker news support this type of labelling?
Yes, as godelski explained. We don't mark moderator usernames as different on this site. Partly that's because the site creator (pg) never did so, and partly because we don't want to create divisions between ourselves and the rest of the community. We're community members too, indeed were that long before we ever became moderators. It would feel weird to go around with special hats on.
At the same time, I know it leads to confusion sometimes, and I'm sorry about that.
At the same time, I know it leads to confusion sometimes, and I'm sorry about that.
Dang and Scott Bell are the two moderators here. I don't know Scott's username but Dang is pretty well known. It confused me at first too but he's been pretty active lately so I think they just don't tag is because it is such a small community and pretty much everyone knows who Dang is.
Thanks for the call out. Snark can distract from the conversation.
>scientists are not in the business of filling reports
The primary task of a PI these days is to write grant applications.
The primary task of a PI these days is to write grant applications.
Yeah, from the article:
"Lauer also presented data on the nature of the violations that NIH has uncovered. Some 70% (133) of the researchers had failed to disclose to NIH the receipt of a foreign grant, and 54% had failed to disclose participation in a foreign talent program. In contrast, Lauer said, only 9% hid ties to a foreign company, and only 4% had an undisclosed foreign patent. Some 5% of cases involved a violation of NIH’s peer-review system."
So sounds like ~90% of the 189 violations maybe just not checking a box. It's not clear to me what the violations were for the 54 people who were fired.
From where I sit, science espionage from China certainly sounds plausible (And should be dealt with), but ginning up negligible issues to get rid of the wrong kind of people is a completely plausible move from the current administration.
"Lauer also presented data on the nature of the violations that NIH has uncovered. Some 70% (133) of the researchers had failed to disclose to NIH the receipt of a foreign grant, and 54% had failed to disclose participation in a foreign talent program. In contrast, Lauer said, only 9% hid ties to a foreign company, and only 4% had an undisclosed foreign patent. Some 5% of cases involved a violation of NIH’s peer-review system."
So sounds like ~90% of the 189 violations maybe just not checking a box. It's not clear to me what the violations were for the 54 people who were fired.
From where I sit, science espionage from China certainly sounds plausible (And should be dealt with), but ginning up negligible issues to get rid of the wrong kind of people is a completely plausible move from the current administration.
> So sounds like ~90% of the 189 violations maybe just not checking a box.
Like when you file you taxes and your only mistake is to forget to check that box that says you had a job?
The Talents program comes with a lot of perks, some of which would be a pretty big deal to lie about. Like committing for 1-2 months in the summer in China, then telling the NIH you are available full-time in the summer also.
Like when you file you taxes and your only mistake is to forget to check that box that says you had a job?
The Talents program comes with a lot of perks, some of which would be a pretty big deal to lie about. Like committing for 1-2 months in the summer in China, then telling the NIH you are available full-time in the summer also.
It's sad to see a situation like this in the scientific community. The larger part of international chinese researchers are probably worried if this is spreading to non-US countries. Most of researchers I know returned to China in these programmes simply wanted a secure/easier/family life, which probably means they won't be outputting much research as the new environment won't be as creative and competitive as in the U.S /European research fields. I'm shocked to find these alleged espionage cases which seem to paint the opposite picture.
These kinds of laws aren't really written for people making mistakes. They are about having a reason to stop someone that is suspected of something, but there is not enough evidence yet for an official arrest, from leaving the country. Think Capone getting arrested for tax violations and not for distribution of alcohol (actually there are laws on the books explicitly for this, because tax evasion is easier to prove). It's the same reason there's questions on the visa application like "do you intend to commit a crime while visiting" or "do you have connections to a terrorist organization". Obviously if people do, they are going to answer no. But if your cousin is a terrorist you might answer no. If you are leaving right after a terrorist attack committed by the group your cousin was in the US may want to stop you for questioning. They will use this law to stop you. From there they can ask more questions and find out if you were actually linked to the attack or not (in this hypothetical you weren't, so you are just let go). That doesn't mean it can't be abused, but that's what these questions are there for and why the articles are explicitly vague. These people were stopped (you have to have a reason to keep them in the country!) and being investigated. If they didn't do anything they will be let go (well are supposed to).
Enforcement might deter ( is this proper English? ).
It seems technically valid (maybe?) but it's pretty hard to parse. You should at least add another word or two to indicate what it would deter.
Slightly ambiguous because I think the GP actually meant something like "enforcement may decline (to penalize or press charges)" which is definitely true and likely the case if 90% of these are paperwork errors.
There are definitely paperwork errors I can imagine, but it's difficult to imagine it being as simple a mistake as not checking the box that says "you have a job". More likely would be a grant office not being fully aware of a professors' funding sources or miscategorizing their funding in such a way that the grant office person helping with the paperwork marked it wrong and the professor didn't check carefully.
That I would consider to be an "honest mistake" that gets corrected by moving money around and a strongly worried letter.
Other stories I've heard go as far as two married professors who took their grant money and used it instead to move to an island resort for three months or something like that and didn't actually do the project at all. That was definitely a crime, but largely only because it involved the federal government. If they'd gotten a grant from a private company and didn't do what they promised it would likely be a civil lawsuit unless it rose to the level of actual illegal fraud.
There are definitely paperwork errors I can imagine, but it's difficult to imagine it being as simple a mistake as not checking the box that says "you have a job". More likely would be a grant office not being fully aware of a professors' funding sources or miscategorizing their funding in such a way that the grant office person helping with the paperwork marked it wrong and the professor didn't check carefully.
That I would consider to be an "honest mistake" that gets corrected by moving money around and a strongly worried letter.
Other stories I've heard go as far as two married professors who took their grant money and used it instead to move to an island resort for three months or something like that and didn't actually do the project at all. That was definitely a crime, but largely only because it involved the federal government. If they'd gotten a grant from a private company and didn't do what they promised it would likely be a civil lawsuit unless it rose to the level of actual illegal fraud.
[deleted]
It's probably even dumber than that.
1) Trump or someone else in the WH becomes convinced that the NIH is full of Chinese spies
2) Some poor flak winds up with the job of producing some spies to fire, or else
3) We wind up with this weak sauce
You know who would have absolutely none of these paperwork gaps? An actual spy.
1) Trump or someone else in the WH becomes convinced that the NIH is full of Chinese spies
2) Some poor flak winds up with the job of producing some spies to fire, or else
3) We wind up with this weak sauce
You know who would have absolutely none of these paperwork gaps? An actual spy.
This is not about Trump and this is worst mis-direction tactic to derail the conversation and inquiry on this subject.
As an outsider it is extremely hard to see how this is disconnected from Trump.
It's a political decision, entirely. Meanwhile, Trump has been escalating the treatment of China as a spying, cold-war-style enemy (and thus rehabilitating Russia from that role).
It's a political decision, entirely. Meanwhile, Trump has been escalating the treatment of China as a spying, cold-war-style enemy (and thus rehabilitating Russia from that role).
.. it's a political situation involving the executive branch?
I'm not sure what you mean by mis-direction.
I'm not sure what you mean by mis-direction.
The answer to all of your questions is "it depends". I can say with certainty that no one is going to be able to provide an accurate answer without looking at each case individually.
Generally speaking:
- It's typically okay to receive money from foreign companies and foreign-owned businesses/organizations. Both culturally and legally. E.g., the government explicitly black-lists instead of white-lists.
- Forgetting to report small amounts of money (low five figures at a time) can be chalked up to sloppiness, even if the total amount adds up to six figures over a long period of time. E.g., just as a graduate student I received mid five figures worth of travel grants and honorariums from a half dozen different funding agencies, many of them foreign-owned. As a more senior researcher I now keep track of every penny in and out of my group, but many of my colleagues do not. And that's reasonable -- they effectively run small consulting shops with seven figure annual budgets and were never taught how to run a small business! Don't get me wrong, they should be way more serious about these things (and most people now realize this), but there's lots of failure to report that IMO doesn't rise to the level of fraud or criminal conspiracy.
- Forgetting to report larger funding streams (six figures/yr for multiple years, or any funding stream that adds up to more than maybe a half million) is either fraud or at least such inexcusable oversight that firing is perhaps not an unreasonable action.
- This all gets more complicated if the funding was received "on the side" (i.e., not through the university). Note: it is 100% Ok and even normal for professors to do consulting/advising on the side. To be clear, they still need to report this funding. But, again, it's super believable that someone could forget to report or not know they were supposed to report for a side gig.
- Similarly, this all gets more complicated if the funding was received many years ago and was not a huge sum. E.g., did I receive any money from <insert random European country> while doing my PhD or the first couple years afterward? No fucking clue, that entire time of life was a whirlwind and no one trained me to keep track of such things.
Generally speaking:
- It's typically okay to receive money from foreign companies and foreign-owned businesses/organizations. Both culturally and legally. E.g., the government explicitly black-lists instead of white-lists.
- Forgetting to report small amounts of money (low five figures at a time) can be chalked up to sloppiness, even if the total amount adds up to six figures over a long period of time. E.g., just as a graduate student I received mid five figures worth of travel grants and honorariums from a half dozen different funding agencies, many of them foreign-owned. As a more senior researcher I now keep track of every penny in and out of my group, but many of my colleagues do not. And that's reasonable -- they effectively run small consulting shops with seven figure annual budgets and were never taught how to run a small business! Don't get me wrong, they should be way more serious about these things (and most people now realize this), but there's lots of failure to report that IMO doesn't rise to the level of fraud or criminal conspiracy.
- Forgetting to report larger funding streams (six figures/yr for multiple years, or any funding stream that adds up to more than maybe a half million) is either fraud or at least such inexcusable oversight that firing is perhaps not an unreasonable action.
- This all gets more complicated if the funding was received "on the side" (i.e., not through the university). Note: it is 100% Ok and even normal for professors to do consulting/advising on the side. To be clear, they still need to report this funding. But, again, it's super believable that someone could forget to report or not know they were supposed to report for a side gig.
- Similarly, this all gets more complicated if the funding was received many years ago and was not a huge sum. E.g., did I receive any money from <insert random European country> while doing my PhD or the first couple years afterward? No fucking clue, that entire time of life was a whirlwind and no one trained me to keep track of such things.
Scientists and their organizations have an obligation to identify and mitigate conflicts of interest. If scientists are receiving funding off the books without disclosing, they're either actively or "accidentally" preventing that.
Further, they likely breached their ethics policy which is usually the part of their contract, employment agreement, etc
^ These apply regardless of the source.
Now considering the source, you have to investigate if they disclosed or were asked to disclose information on the policies, studies, etc they came in contact with.
Alternatively, did they adjust or were they asked to adjust their positions, policies, studies, etc that they were involved in?
^ Turns out those apply regardless of the source too.
In the most charitable explanation, they were incredibly sloppy multiple times in multiple ways. In the worst explanation, they committed espionage and/or damaged the entire process. The answer is likely somewhere in between.
Further, they likely breached their ethics policy which is usually the part of their contract, employment agreement, etc
^ These apply regardless of the source.
Now considering the source, you have to investigate if they disclosed or were asked to disclose information on the policies, studies, etc they came in contact with.
Alternatively, did they adjust or were they asked to adjust their positions, policies, studies, etc that they were involved in?
^ Turns out those apply regardless of the source too.
In the most charitable explanation, they were incredibly sloppy multiple times in multiple ways. In the worst explanation, they committed espionage and/or damaged the entire process. The answer is likely somewhere in between.
I don't think there's any debate over whether or not these scientists did something wrong.
The question is the nature of the wrongness. Was it some trivial clerical error being painted as treason by insane anti-China zealots? Or did what they do actually rise to the level of fraud/treason? I.e., is this communist witch hunt v 2.0, or did these scientists really deserve to be fired/face criminal charges?
And, again, I don't think an answer to that question is possible without looking at each case individually. Anyone claiming to have an answer without going case-by-case is in over their head.
The rest of your post is wild speculation about the nature of the foreign talents program and level of involvement in that program of particular individuals.
The question is the nature of the wrongness. Was it some trivial clerical error being painted as treason by insane anti-China zealots? Or did what they do actually rise to the level of fraud/treason? I.e., is this communist witch hunt v 2.0, or did these scientists really deserve to be fired/face criminal charges?
And, again, I don't think an answer to that question is possible without looking at each case individually. Anyone claiming to have an answer without going case-by-case is in over their head.
The rest of your post is wild speculation about the nature of the foreign talents program and level of involvement in that program of particular individuals.
Forgetting to report even a small amount of money if done deliberately can usually be prosecuted as a felony.
> if done deliberately
Right. And even unintentionally is quite bad. But also not even close to uncommon.
I don't think the question was "was what these people did bad?" I think the question was "is what these people did really _that_ bad?"
Right. And even unintentionally is quite bad. But also not even close to uncommon.
I don't think the question was "was what these people did bad?" I think the question was "is what these people did really _that_ bad?"
If you look into the news reporting on the individual cases, some look bad (emails documenting attempts to cover up, smuggling lab materials out of the country) and some don't (despite not including it on the grant form, researchers acknowledged the funding in published papers and didn't try to hide it).
Most everyone here is missing the point. The real problem is that NIH funding is limited and competitive, and the NIH needs to prioritize funding labs that don't already have enough money. I'm not discounting that some people involved in this process may be motivated by completely different reasons, but having a complete picture of existing funding sources when distributing grants makes sense regardless of the geopolitical context.
> NIH needs to prioritize funding labs that don't already have enough money
So then why the focus on foreign grants? From the article:
> [Of the scientists who were fired/resigned] Some 70% (133) of the researchers had failed to disclose to NIH the receipt of a foreign grant, and 54% had failed to disclose participation in a foreign talent program. In contrast, Lauer said, only 9% hid ties to a foreign company, and only 4% had an undisclosed foreign patent. Some 5% of cases involved a violation of NIH’s peer-review system.
So then why the focus on foreign grants? From the article:
> [Of the scientists who were fired/resigned] Some 70% (133) of the researchers had failed to disclose to NIH the receipt of a foreign grant, and 54% had failed to disclose participation in a foreign talent program. In contrast, Lauer said, only 9% hid ties to a foreign company, and only 4% had an undisclosed foreign patent. Some 5% of cases involved a violation of NIH’s peer-review system.
Well, there certainly may be other motivations at play, but it's also easier to keep foreign grants secret. The NIH, NSF, and American Cancer Society all make their awards public and searchable (I assume it's true for any organization with serious money or federal funding but those are the only ones I have come across). That said I also don't know if the federal funding agencies actually check outside of their own organization whether someone failed to mention a grant on an application.
This is kind of off-topic since the issue was these scientists lying about their ties to a foreign government. I wanted to address how people think there's no IP theft here.
Although results and information about the research are often published to the public, experimental setup and some technical details are usually not included in the publication. Just because a paper on the research will eventually be available to the public doesn't mean the technology can be easily replicated. The concern here is that the real hard work that comes from months of trial and error is being stolen to competing nations that would take advantage of the theft to claim the author of such technology. Not to mention the tech is funded by American taxpayer dollars and developed by scientists who spent years and months on it. There's a recent incident on a Chinese Scientist lying about his affiliation with the Chinese Military and have been sending proprietary lab information to China.
See: https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/06/11/alleged-chinese...
Although results and information about the research are often published to the public, experimental setup and some technical details are usually not included in the publication. Just because a paper on the research will eventually be available to the public doesn't mean the technology can be easily replicated. The concern here is that the real hard work that comes from months of trial and error is being stolen to competing nations that would take advantage of the theft to claim the author of such technology. Not to mention the tech is funded by American taxpayer dollars and developed by scientists who spent years and months on it. There's a recent incident on a Chinese Scientist lying about his affiliation with the Chinese Military and have been sending proprietary lab information to China.
See: https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/06/11/alleged-chinese...
I don't understand. What is the danger that this poses? Is it that the American government is funding science that only benefits China somehow? How?
It's not so much the funding as the lack of disclosure of said funding. These researches were trying to hide their ties to China/foreign governments from the NIH. That's a pretty big red flag for all sorts of potential reasons.
I dont see any problem either from a public health perspective. I suspect what they are trying to go after is chinese institutions scooping US researchers through IP theft. I have heard this is a particular problem in medical research because everything is so commercially oriented. By comparison, i don't believe NNSA grants prevent researchers from receiving funding from elsewhere, and those grants are focused on nuclear technologies.
But NIH is all published - how can you IP steal? Maybe you get it a year ahead of time I guess?
If you scoop another researcher then you get the publication. Then the first thing you can do is ruin someone's year by publishing the fruits of their hard work before they do. They are screwed and you take the novel direction over.
But for real IP, in the US if you publish something you get a year to patent it. In many other places you have to patent it before you publish. So if you get their info before they have published it yet you can file the patent first.
But for real IP, in the US if you publish something you get a year to patent it. In many other places you have to patent it before you publish. So if you get their info before they have published it yet you can file the patent first.
> But for real IP, in the US if you publish something you get a year to patent it. In many other places you have to patent it before you publish. So if you get their info before they have published it yet you can file the patent first.
The US used to be first-to-invent but now its also first-to-file like in the EU countries.
The US used to be first-to-invent but now its also first-to-file like in the EU countries.
It certainly seems like a risky situation to get into. I'm sure lawyers would probably always advise you to file first anyway. For one thing you aren't a lawyer so the way you wrote up your publication may only cover an extremely narrow aspect of your invention.
But once you publish the invention, others should not be able to patent the idea anymore as there is prior art (your publication) and patents are required to be novel. This leaves you as the only person who can patent it.
But once you publish the invention, others should not be able to patent the idea anymore as there is prior art (your publication) and patents are required to be novel. This leaves you as the only person who can patent it.
The GP's point was that in the US, you have up to a year of publishing before patenting it, even in 2020.
In the EU, you have to file the patent first before publishing.
I have to admit it sure sounds like it's the opposite of first-to-file in the US, at least for the first year, but those are the rules.
In the EU, you have to file the patent first before publishing.
I have to admit it sure sounds like it's the opposite of first-to-file in the US, at least for the first year, but those are the rules.
direction of research is influenced by people participating in it. Chinese can pursue their own agenda with NIH funding.
The danger is that people who are secretly funded by the Chinese government, and lie about it to the US government, might be flipped to foreign agents in case of conflict. The funding itself I agree isn't an issue, and the probe doesn't seem to have targeted people who were honest about it.
Communist scare all over again? Using this logic we should go over everywhere in the US to see who has ties to China just like they did in the 50s against the soviet union. Everyone knows how that ended...
With the Russians getting nukes? That's how that ended. The red state's overreach and predudicial nature doesn't invalidate the reality that the USSR had spies that stole state secrets and important research. And if we were any good at our jobs, the US had a bunch of spies over there too. That's kind of what nation states in conflict do.
In the history of the planet, only was rogue country had the villainy of destroying two large cities with hundreds of thousands of innocent people with nuclear bombs. I think this is more than enough reason for the Russians wish to protect themselves.
I think you can look at the actions and history of the CCP and be pretty wary of their intent and the methods they will use to get there. China estimates 16.5M died due to the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution brought millions more deaths. Fast forward to more recent events in tiananmen square, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, etc. and one can be easily made skeptical of the motives of the CCP.
If that's how you look at it the US must be the literal devil with China his junior in training.
And how exactly? What metrics are you baseing this claim upon. Name them and lets compare.
it seems like your version of CPC is mostly interested in killing their own citizens; where's the harm to the US?
If you are willing to use mass killing as a political tool in you own country what will you be willing to resort to to achieve political ends with others?
The danger is a one way relationship exists. Science that Chinese government funds is not available to Americans.
[deleted]
I can see that this could be a case of accidentally not checking a box, but at the same time, lack of knowledge or a mistake is not an excuse for breaking the law. I do firmly believe that China has infiltrated our research institutions and actively funneling that back to China. We should do more to guard against that, and if this is the necessary first step, then maybe its enforcement will lead to better oversight in the future by the institutions. It's really the institutions that must shoulder some of the blame for not also conducting their due diligence.
For those who are wondering what harm this could cause to western countries, I think it's an interesting point: Researcher's spiking interesting results in public but funneling them home.
Supposing they were spying, what’s the edge that China gets since NIH research gets published publicly anyway?
Not all results from NIH funding winds up in the public domain. NIH can pay for modifications to AWS services or Oracle or Palantir and the developer gets to keep it.
> what’s the edge that China gets since NIH research gets published publicly anyway?
There's a lot of ways and it is dependent on what is being researched.
For example, if you are researching drugs you don't say everything about how to make that drug. In fact, you can't really in a 10 page report if you also want to show results (which is what the focus is on). Typically the "how" is kept more secret, because then it can be commercialized. This is their "secret sauce." Everyone can taste it and see it, but that doesn't mean you know how it is made and to recreate it takes a lot of time and research. If you made it first, you have a big head start, even if it doesn't stay secret for long. So the question as a US citizen here is "The US funded this research through tax payer money, do you want a Chinese company producing the drug or an American?" Or I can rephrase that as "Which country gets the economic benefits from production of said product?" Obviously a government doesn't like investing in something that another country is going to reap all the benefits from.
Researchers frequently have custom and specialty equipment. Frequently to invent things you need to invent other things along the way. You aren't going to publish a paper on the method you used to keep a solution at a constant temperature and mixing level, but that machine may be essential to making the product. In fact, many of the people in the lab would have no idea how to recreate that machine (only one person knows). So if pictures are being taken so that it can be reverse engineered, this is definitely academic espionage.
There's also academic scooping. As much as people don't talk about it, it happens a lot. Imagine working on a project for a year and then some other lab produces the same thing you have and publishes first. Your research can be done overnight because you need to be published. You might even have a better product but if it can be difficult to prove that yours is so much better that a rushed and lower quality product can win. This means they can also get the patents and rights to that thing if it is commercializable.
There's other ways too, but I believe these would be the most common.
There's a lot of ways and it is dependent on what is being researched.
For example, if you are researching drugs you don't say everything about how to make that drug. In fact, you can't really in a 10 page report if you also want to show results (which is what the focus is on). Typically the "how" is kept more secret, because then it can be commercialized. This is their "secret sauce." Everyone can taste it and see it, but that doesn't mean you know how it is made and to recreate it takes a lot of time and research. If you made it first, you have a big head start, even if it doesn't stay secret for long. So the question as a US citizen here is "The US funded this research through tax payer money, do you want a Chinese company producing the drug or an American?" Or I can rephrase that as "Which country gets the economic benefits from production of said product?" Obviously a government doesn't like investing in something that another country is going to reap all the benefits from.
Researchers frequently have custom and specialty equipment. Frequently to invent things you need to invent other things along the way. You aren't going to publish a paper on the method you used to keep a solution at a constant temperature and mixing level, but that machine may be essential to making the product. In fact, many of the people in the lab would have no idea how to recreate that machine (only one person knows). So if pictures are being taken so that it can be reverse engineered, this is definitely academic espionage.
There's also academic scooping. As much as people don't talk about it, it happens a lot. Imagine working on a project for a year and then some other lab produces the same thing you have and publishes first. Your research can be done overnight because you need to be published. You might even have a better product but if it can be difficult to prove that yours is so much better that a rushed and lower quality product can win. This means they can also get the patents and rights to that thing if it is commercializable.
There's other ways too, but I believe these would be the most common.
It's probably not about what gets punished but what does not get published. China might suppress information that could be important.
There is no reason for the researchers to hide payments from China if they were honest and the NIH obviously agrees.
There is no reason for the researchers to hide payments from China if they were honest and the NIH obviously agrees.
They can influence the direction and conclusions of the research. Undermining the science altogether. Leading to bad policy and harming the NIH’s and science’s public reputation as a whole.
Not unlike what Coca-Cola has been doing to nutrition science.[]
[] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-coca-cola-disguised-its...
Not unlike what Coca-Cola has been doing to nutrition science.[]
[] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-coca-cola-disguised-its...
The same argument can be used to say that researchers shouldn't receive money from USA, because this will influence the direction of their research conclusions and undermine the science altogether. If you don't know, a major contributor to science in the US is the DoD, and we know that the DoD has a mandate to act against perceived "enemies" of the American government.
Setting aside the obvious differences in incentives between the U.S. government and the Chinese government.
U.S. funding here is obvious and understood. It’s a government body. Calling conspiracy here is disingenuous. It’s effectively disclosed and can be evaluated.
The problem is that these foreign ties were not disclosed. They can’t be evaluated.
U.S. funding here is obvious and understood. It’s a government body. Calling conspiracy here is disingenuous. It’s effectively disclosed and can be evaluated.
The problem is that these foreign ties were not disclosed. They can’t be evaluated.
To be clear, there are countless examples of corporate influence on science beyond just Coca-cola. Professional science is sadly an avenue for manufacturing narratives, not empowering humanity.
The US worships corporations so unfortunately this is not an actionable issue.
The US worships corporations so unfortunately this is not an actionable issue.
They're getting a huge head start.
It's not unusual for it to take 6-12 months to publish after all the work is done.
Plus, there is often information which isn't published which is critical to the science.
It's not unusual for it to take 6-12 months to publish after all the work is done.
Plus, there is often information which isn't published which is critical to the science.
It a shame this is happening. Surprisingly the new Space Force show on Netflix is remarkably topical. There's an episode where a political disagreement is encountered between America and the PRC. The chief scientist at space force (whose character is basically "science good, military bad") argues that a simple conversation with the PRC science team should clear things up, because "science is a fraternity that knows no borders." It goes FUBAR when the PRC science team turn out to be just as political as their bureaucratic counterparts.
Ideally science would be a borderless fraternity/sorority... I wonder how bureaucrats and politicians manage to override scientist's own values as such to indoctrinate them with patriotism?
Ideally science would be a borderless fraternity/sorority... I wonder how bureaucrats and politicians manage to override scientist's own values as such to indoctrinate them with patriotism?
Scientists are vulnerable to nationalist sentiments same as anyone else.
“Of course the people don’t want war. But (...) all you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
— Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
“Of course the people don’t want war. But (...) all you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
— Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
I don't know much about America's "Space Force", but as I understand it NASA is forbidden by federal law from collaborating with the PRC, which is why the PRC cannot participate in the ISS.
It's such a common theme that I see everywhere. I know the chinese population have been known notoriously nationalistic but having lived in Ireland in my early research years and it was just as bad (was the period when queen of Britain visiting Ireland)... I think it's to do with identity.
I think the frat/sorority days end when they walk across the stage for their degree if not sooner. Funding needs and publish or perish make people pretty dog eat dog. In my corporate experience the more technical and especially once people have phds they turn pretty toxic and less group oriented quickly.
St happens when politics meddles with sciences.
> politics meddles with sciences.
referring to chinese ip-stealing?
referring to chinese ip-stealing?
An external perspective from a non-American; I think curbing any kind of foreign influence is a good thing based on China related news in my own country. Also I think a large part of criticism of these actions are generated by people thinking such actions are racist and hence just wrong and no matter what, unjustifiable. That kind of weak thinking is just not acceptable when China has been openly hostile on so many fronts...
Such actions have a tendency to back fire.
For example read up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qian_Xuesen
This was a scientist who was forced out in the 50ies and he ended up founding modern Chinese rocketry, including their ICBMs. Of course they would have eventually done it anyways, but it would have likely taken longer.
For example read up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qian_Xuesen
This was a scientist who was forced out in the 50ies and he ended up founding modern Chinese rocketry, including their ICBMs. Of course they would have eventually done it anyways, but it would have likely taken longer.
[deleted]
> Of course they would have eventually done it anyways, ut it would have likely taken longer.
why? what was he waiting for?
why? what was he waiting for?
I'm pretty sure that sentence should be parsed as:
> Of course [China] would have [had an ICBM program] anyways, but it would have likely taken longer.
rather than
> Of course [Qian Xuesen] would have [defected] anyways, but it would have likely taken longer.
> Of course [China] would have [had an ICBM program] anyways, but it would have likely taken longer.
rather than
> Of course [Qian Xuesen] would have [defected] anyways, but it would have likely taken longer.
Yes I was referring to the ICBM program.
No idea what Xuesen would have done without McCarthyism, but he might have well ended up staying in the US.
No idea what Xuesen would have done without McCarthyism, but he might have well ended up staying in the US.
People have plans but get comfortable. How many FAANG engineers have grand startup plans but are comfortable with their jobs that they don't go out and pursue those plans?
> Such actions have a tendency to back fire.
So this conclusion was drawn based on speculation that he was complacent person?
> FAANG engineers have grand startup plans but are comfortable with their jobs
In this case he got a job with another govt agency( Chinese ) so equivalent would be FANG engineers getting a job in another FANG company, which they do all the time.
So this conclusion was drawn based on speculation that he was complacent person?
> FAANG engineers have grand startup plans but are comfortable with their jobs
In this case he got a job with another govt agency( Chinese ) so equivalent would be FANG engineers getting a job in another FANG company, which they do all the time.
It seems CCP's only defense of their actions is to attack critics as racist, which is kind of like a false dichotomy.
The reality is it's possible to condemn any given government and its actions and its agents in that capacity, while saying nothing about a people.
I agree, their position is so weak as to not withstand debate, so they fear debate and resort to deflections like this.
The reality is it's possible to condemn any given government and its actions and its agents in that capacity, while saying nothing about a people.
I agree, their position is so weak as to not withstand debate, so they fear debate and resort to deflections like this.
Racism is the definition of weak thinking. The idea that you can somehow forgo logic if your goals are sufficiently important is even weaker thinking.
The US Government has had a history of targeting (in hindsight) unrelated people in their efforts to "curb foreign influence". See the history of Japanese Internment camps and the McCarthyist Red Scare. This is taught in most US highschools.
We even see the same illogical reasoning being carried out in this comment section (ironically by non-Americans), where any argument against this political culling is dismissed as "CCP Propaganda" and any attempt to point out that the tensions between the US and Russia/Japan/China are unnecessary are met with generic references to past "hostilities" but never specific examples.
The US Government has had a history of targeting (in hindsight) unrelated people in their efforts to "curb foreign influence". See the history of Japanese Internment camps and the McCarthyist Red Scare. This is taught in most US highschools.
We even see the same illogical reasoning being carried out in this comment section (ironically by non-Americans), where any argument against this political culling is dismissed as "CCP Propaganda" and any attempt to point out that the tensions between the US and Russia/Japan/China are unnecessary are met with generic references to past "hostilities" but never specific examples.
I don't see this kind of hostility. China is a commercial competitor. The US is trying to transform commercial competition into a racist war. I think this is despicable.
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. There isn't nearly enough substance in this comment to enhance a good conversation, and we definitely don't need denunciatory rhetoric.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
One typical CCP propaganda tactic is make intellectually dishonest accusations of racism to deflect from CCP malfeasance. The CCP has a long history of using seemingly benign interactions with foreign nations as an opportunity for espionage. Scurtiny of all ties to China, especially hidden ties, is just due diligence at this point.
One typical American propaganda tactic is to suggest that only communist countries that the US doesn't like are conducting espionage, or that espionage is uncommon in geopolitics. This way, the US government can easily justify discriminatory policies that unjustly targets, say Chinese researchers, to its public. The US has a long history of spying on foreign nations and stealing IP to benefit American businesses. US media has a long history of outright lying and otherwise spreading propaganda to manufacture consent for the government. Any accusations by the US government against other countries should be taken with a giant grain of salt, especially without proof.
Sounds reasonable. Lets see those investigations from other nations concerning US actions. Please do link to these occurrences as they will further the discussion of the role of espionage in scientific research.
Perhaps you've heard of the Crypto AG case, where the CIA infiltrated a foreign company and used its resources to spy on countless other countries, usurp intellectual property from foreign businesses, and used their moles in Crypto AG to give American companies an unfair market advantage:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/national-...
This was one of Snowden's big revelations - America had been using Crypto AG (a Swiss company) to infiltrate and usurp countless other foreign businesses, to give American companies a distinct advantage - FOR DECADES, since the 70's!!! (Also, it is quite well known that the CIA runs Germany's BND. Does China's intelligence agency run the intelligence agencies of any other sovereign nation, that you know of?)
This is the pot. And the kettle is also black, btw.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/national-...
This was one of Snowden's big revelations - America had been using Crypto AG (a Swiss company) to infiltrate and usurp countless other foreign businesses, to give American companies a distinct advantage - FOR DECADES, since the 70's!!! (Also, it is quite well known that the CIA runs Germany's BND. Does China's intelligence agency run the intelligence agencies of any other sovereign nation, that you know of?)
This is the pot. And the kettle is also black, btw.
So is your argument that the US spys so it shouldn't look for potential cases of foreign spying in its own country? That seems kind of naive. In light of your argument transparency in research funding becomes even more important BECAUSE the US government spies so readily not in spite of it. The US can only expect countries to try to treat it in the manner its treats them so we should be looking for it. This article highlights the looking for it part.
The point is, the claimed moral authority over China's spying activities is a tribalist fallacy, because after all, when it comes to using the intelligence services of the state to usurp progress in other countries, America leads the way.
If the US were really treated the way it treats other countries, Chicago would be a pile of smoking ruin and a sizeable portion of the American population would be trying to find refuge.
If the US were really treated the way it treats other countries, Chicago would be a pile of smoking ruin and a sizeable portion of the American population would be trying to find refuge.
Do you have any evidence of this?
I could not find any mention of secrets being shared with companies in the (very long) article you linked.
I could not find any mention of secrets being shared with companies in the (very long) article you linked.
Well, you can start your research into this goldmine of details about the USA's many stages of industrial espionage right here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_espionage#Industria...
Find out what Edward Snowden has to say about it:
https://www.bbc.com/news/25907502
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-snowden-germany/...
.. and then, if you're still so interested, investigate what was stolen from Siemens (Germany) and Petrobras (Brasil) and France Telecom ..
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1995/05/help-wanted-spy...
Careful, though. Its probably illegal for American citizens to find out too much about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_espionage#Industria...
Find out what Edward Snowden has to say about it:
https://www.bbc.com/news/25907502
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-snowden-germany/...
.. and then, if you're still so interested, investigate what was stolen from Siemens (Germany) and Petrobras (Brasil) and France Telecom ..
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1995/05/help-wanted-spy...
Careful, though. Its probably illegal for American citizens to find out too much about this.
Most of this information appears to be readily accessable from the US. Let me know when you find that report where a US citizen was arrested or charged for reading any of this.
Sibel Edmonds.
No need. Straight from the horse's mouth:
Secretary of State and former CIA director Mike Pompeo: "we lied, we cheated, we stole..."
Secretary of State and former CIA director Mike Pompeo: "we lied, we cheated, we stole..."
So your argument is the government is lying about this so it can target Chinese American researchers who did properly disclose and are doing everything right? And what evidence do you have of Chinese American researchers being unfairly prosecuted or held to different standards?
It seems to be a common frame among those defending China that the US is still the way it was in the 1950s. Which I guess makes sense, given that under Xi China is descending into a type of Neo-Maoism. I imagine Chinese propagandists are dusting off a lot of the old talking points.
At any rate, China's "mistake" from that perspective is that they integrated Capitalism as much as they have over the last 40 years. They are no longer viewed as a "Communist" threat by many Americans, they're viewed (correctly) as a dictatorship. There is no philosophical debate to be had, the Chinese love capitalism just as much as Americans do. No, they're just a straight-up underhanded dictatorship trying to seize as much power as it can. Americans know how to process that sort of threat.
It seems to be a common frame among those defending China that the US is still the way it was in the 1950s. Which I guess makes sense, given that under Xi China is descending into a type of Neo-Maoism. I imagine Chinese propagandists are dusting off a lot of the old talking points.
At any rate, China's "mistake" from that perspective is that they integrated Capitalism as much as they have over the last 40 years. They are no longer viewed as a "Communist" threat by many Americans, they're viewed (correctly) as a dictatorship. There is no philosophical debate to be had, the Chinese love capitalism just as much as Americans do. No, they're just a straight-up underhanded dictatorship trying to seize as much power as it can. Americans know how to process that sort of threat.
My argument is that certain questions need to be asked instead of taking the headline at face value, given the history of questionable actions by the US government and media when it comes foreign nations. If you've read the article or looked at the linked resources, it's obvious that this campaign is directed towards China, and therefore Chinese or Chinese-American researchers. One question that should be immediately obvious to ask is: how are the targets chosen in this investigation? Is it a blanket investigation of all scientists of a certain seniority in certain fields regardless of nationality or race?
It seems to be a common frame among those attacking China that China is still the way it was in the 1950s. Which I guess makes sense, given that under Trump/Obama, the US is descending back into McCarthyism. I imagine American propagandists are dusting off a lot of the old talking points.
From my experience, the general American public still think China is communist. I agree regarding China and capitalism, but a dictatorship it is not. If you were to compare China's foreign policy with that of the US, it fairly obvious that China is simply trying to build itself up through economic means, but the US feels threatened by the competition so it uses underhanded tactics such as smearing China in every MSM outlet, banning US companies from doing business with Chinese companies, banning Chinese technology, etc. It's almost identical to what it did to Japan back in the days which is why you're running Intel or AMD today instead of Fujitsu, Hitachi, Toshiba.
It seems to be a common frame among those attacking China that China is still the way it was in the 1950s. Which I guess makes sense, given that under Trump/Obama, the US is descending back into McCarthyism. I imagine American propagandists are dusting off a lot of the old talking points.
From my experience, the general American public still think China is communist. I agree regarding China and capitalism, but a dictatorship it is not. If you were to compare China's foreign policy with that of the US, it fairly obvious that China is simply trying to build itself up through economic means, but the US feels threatened by the competition so it uses underhanded tactics such as smearing China in every MSM outlet, banning US companies from doing business with Chinese companies, banning Chinese technology, etc. It's almost identical to what it did to Japan back in the days which is why you're running Intel or AMD today instead of Fujitsu, Hitachi, Toshiba.
A dictatorship it is not?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43361276 https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2020/02/asia/xinjiang-ch... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52765838
If it walks like duck and talks like a duck it must totally not be a dictatorship. /s
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43361276 https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2020/02/asia/xinjiang-ch... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52765838
If it walks like duck and talks like a duck it must totally not be a dictatorship. /s
Many in the US see China as much more than a commercial competitor, but as an ideological and existential threat.
Many in the US are brainwashed by the American media empire.
[deleted]
knolax(2)
So basically we see the reemergence of the communist scare, a sick and demented policy that criminalized professionals who were perceived to be "collaborating" with an "enemy" foreign country. This makes me disgusted.
I downvoted you because you're wrong. There are strict rules to prevent foreign influence and these people didn't follow them.
There do seem to be some strong indicators there might be a push in that direction. The rising levels of fear mongering directed at others has me a tad concerned.
At the very least, I think people should be aware this may be happening.
At the very least, I think people should be aware this may be happening.
And this is specially sickening when it is directed at scientists, an area where it always necessary to collaborate across the world. To be very clear, if the Chinese are investing billions of dollars in research I want to collaborate with them, it has nothing to do with my nationality.
[deleted]
Its good to see that American tax dollars are no longer being used to help a country trying to undermine America.
It'd be interesting to see what research these spies were stealing or influencing.
I think it's early to assume that these were spies. I am sure that is one of the narratives about this, though.
I’d say calling them ‘spies’ may be unwarranted, particularly when it appears—from the context of the article–this was more about trying to cement the importance of paying close attention when disclosing your funding sources.
Those who the investigation found had disclosed their funding sources were from other countries didn’t seem to be impacted.
Those who the investigation found had disclosed their funding sources were from other countries didn’t seem to be impacted.
"Lauer also presented data on the nature of the violations that NIH has uncovered. Some 70% (133) of the researchers had failed to disclose to NIH the receipt of a foreign grant, and 54% had failed to disclose participation in a foreign talent program. In contrast, Lauer said, only 9% hid ties to a foreign company, and only 4% had an undisclosed foreign patent."
Based on this, many foreign researchers that cooperates with the United Stated, and there are several thousands of them, should be severely punished in his/her country of origin. Most researchers in foreign countries cooperate with American research organizations that transfer technology to US the industry. Just for an example, my home country exchanges information about the Amazon with American institutions, and much of that information is passed on to pharmaceutical companies operating around the world. This is a despicable action that targets China in a way that is racist and hypocrite.
Based on this, many foreign researchers that cooperates with the United Stated, and there are several thousands of them, should be severely punished in his/her country of origin. Most researchers in foreign countries cooperate with American research organizations that transfer technology to US the industry. Just for an example, my home country exchanges information about the Amazon with American institutions, and much of that information is passed on to pharmaceutical companies operating around the world. This is a despicable action that targets China in a way that is racist and hypocrite.
I think the problem is failing to disclose ties with foreign governments. Scientists, just like any professionals, should be held accountable for any potential conflict of interest. Not saying we should bar scientists from collaboration, but it is important to be conscious about what kind of collaborations are happening and how it affects national security or even information securities between our ally countries.
Since we are talking about China, they have been launching programs that "recruits" foreign talents or foreign-trained Chinese talents to participate in technological development in China. However, participant of the program has been reported to partake in intellectual theft, especially sensitive/proprietary technologies [1].
I am giving NIH the benefit of the doubt here since IP theft has been a real problem for the US, especially with technology transfer to China. I don't think this is racist at all because it's a matter of curbing IP thefts and taking a precaution on growing aggression of a country that happens to be 91.6% ethnically Han Chinese people[2].
Source: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_Talents_Plan [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China
Since we are talking about China, they have been launching programs that "recruits" foreign talents or foreign-trained Chinese talents to participate in technological development in China. However, participant of the program has been reported to partake in intellectual theft, especially sensitive/proprietary technologies [1].
I am giving NIH the benefit of the doubt here since IP theft has been a real problem for the US, especially with technology transfer to China. I don't think this is racist at all because it's a matter of curbing IP thefts and taking a precaution on growing aggression of a country that happens to be 91.6% ethnically Han Chinese people[2].
Source: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_Talents_Plan [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China
My comment might be reported as flame bait but I have to say this. Imagine the Secret Of the Universe™, is discovered. I'm just saying I'd much rather live in a world where such a secret is entrusted into American hands rather than Chinese ones. My point being, do not be careless in applying ideals and ideologies to peoples (or governments in this case) that do not deserve them
"My point being, do not be careless in applying ideals and ideologies to peoples (or governments in this case) that do not deserve them"
You're literally doing that but for the US. The families of countless people killed by the US in its illegal wars over just the past several decades would disagree with you, if they haven't been wiped out themselves. Same goes for the countless people that starved to death from US sanctions because their government refused to bow to the US empire.
You're literally doing that but for the US. The families of countless people killed by the US in its illegal wars over just the past several decades would disagree with you, if they haven't been wiped out themselves. Same goes for the countless people that starved to death from US sanctions because their government refused to bow to the US empire.
Quite the opposite, in fact if you discover such a secret the best thing to do is to put it out in the open for everyone to see, so that no country can use it as a secret tool against others.
If disclosure of a foreign grant receipt is a requirement for working with the NIH and if these researchers knew it and hid said receipt then they should be excluded from further participation with the NIH. Where is the suggestion that only undisclosed foreign ties to other governments is not being examined? Me thinks one doth protest too much on this racism angle which is a standard CCP propaganda tactic.
Dude you need to stop spamming this thread with accusations of racism - this has nothing to do with race - these tactics are straight from ccp
The real question is whether they are going after similar offenses when the source of funding in is some other country...?
There was a controversy not long ago about Saudi funding. Some very mediocre Saudi universities were entering the top rankings for research because they paid a lot of well known professors to have affiliate positions at those universities. This suddenly caused a crazy boost in rankings.
Now I doubt those researchers failed to disclose their affiliation/funding (the whole point of the scheme was for them to openly be affiliated). But if they had, would the US government go after them?
> Even more surprising, though, was that a little-known university in Saudi Arabia, King Abdulaziz University, or KAU, ranked seventh in the world in mathematics — despite the fact that it didn’t have a doctorate program in math until two years ago.
https://www.dailycal.org/2014/12/05/citations-sale/
http://blogs.nature.com/houseofwisdom/2012/01/are-saudi-univ...
There was a controversy not long ago about Saudi funding. Some very mediocre Saudi universities were entering the top rankings for research because they paid a lot of well known professors to have affiliate positions at those universities. This suddenly caused a crazy boost in rankings.
Now I doubt those researchers failed to disclose their affiliation/funding (the whole point of the scheme was for them to openly be affiliated). But if they had, would the US government go after them?
> Even more surprising, though, was that a little-known university in Saudi Arabia, King Abdulaziz University, or KAU, ranked seventh in the world in mathematics — despite the fact that it didn’t have a doctorate program in math until two years ago.
https://www.dailycal.org/2014/12/05/citations-sale/
http://blogs.nature.com/houseofwisdom/2012/01/are-saudi-univ...
Well, from the first sentence it says 7% were from other countries:
> In 93% of those cases, the hidden funding came from a Chinese institution.
54 * 0.07 = 3.78 non-Chinese scientists
(I'm guessing the 93% has been rounded)
Edit: nevermind the number 54 was total termination, the 93% was 175/189 of "Scientists NIH contacted institution" where Chinese https://acd.od.nih.gov/documents/presentations/06122020Forei...
> In 93% of those cases, the hidden funding came from a Chinese institution.
54 * 0.07 = 3.78 non-Chinese scientists
(I'm guessing the 93% has been rounded)
Edit: nevermind the number 54 was total termination, the 93% was 175/189 of "Scientists NIH contacted institution" where Chinese https://acd.od.nih.gov/documents/presentations/06122020Forei...
1. Are these as egregious as we are led to believe? 2. Are these really a sign of deep foreign influence? 3. Can it be that these are actually just minor oversights of a large number of individuals without needing to jump to the worst conclusion of these scientists being spies (as one other comment has already asserted)?
I am not trying to water down what may be a serious case of foreign influence, but if this is something common and/or easy to fall into, it's possible this is an overreaction and may cause harm to the research community. The article is worded in a way that doesn't clarify if the focus was only on Chinese influence or if this was broadly designed to capture any foreign influence.
I ask these questions to broaden the discussion because oftentimes research and academic centers can have overly broad requests on disclosure which can be very invasive and, truth be told, if everyone answered fully and clearly, a lot of people would probably be excluded, and that begs the question if these are essential or not in my humble opinion.
To be clear, I am very much for limiting foreign influence on domestic policy, whether it's via research or otherwise, but I think it bears practicing greater skepticism when something may just be a proxy for "action" rather than sincere positive results.