Harvard scientist is arrested, accused of lying about ties to China(npr.org)
npr.org
Harvard scientist is arrested, accused of lying about ties to China
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/28/800442646/acclaimed-harvard-scientist-is-arrested-accused-of-lying-about-ties-to-china
209 comments
I guess the story is that when he started in 2012 he thought nobody cares. Actually he got it right at that time. Although it was violation of government rules, nobody really cared at that time.
He could not predict the change of direction of the U.S. foreign policy. China is taking place of Russia as the No. 1 threat. How could he predict this in 2012?
BTW, I am curious to know did he pay tax for those income? If not, that will be another very serious problem.
He could not predict the change of direction of the U.S. foreign policy. China is taking place of Russia as the No. 1 threat. How could he predict this in 2012?
BTW, I am curious to know did he pay tax for those income? If not, that will be another very serious problem.
He lied on a sworn affidavit, basically, when going out for his grants which includes a background check. You swear your statements to be true. He lied. It doesn’t matter what country is in vogue at the time, and in 2012 China was very much considered a threat for these exact kinds of things.
This is pretty black and white, assuming the evidence presented is legit, which he will have the opportunity to oppose in court.
This is pretty black and white, assuming the evidence presented is legit, which he will have the opportunity to oppose in court.
I don't think that the parent comment is arguing that what he did was justified back then, but now it isn't. They explicitly state that it was definitely a violation of rules even back then.
The parent comment was just trying to make a suggestion, that if that scientist had stopped before the tide has turned against China in the past few years, then he probably would've gotten away with it. He did the calculations right for his chances of not being caught being pretty good back in 2012, he just simply didn't adjust them as the time passed and the situations changed. Or maybe he did the adjustment, but a lot of people tend lose their minds and get too greedy to stop before it is too late when it comes to big money.
The parent comment was just trying to make a suggestion, that if that scientist had stopped before the tide has turned against China in the past few years, then he probably would've gotten away with it. He did the calculations right for his chances of not being caught being pretty good back in 2012, he just simply didn't adjust them as the time passed and the situations changed. Or maybe he did the adjustment, but a lot of people tend lose their minds and get too greedy to stop before it is too late when it comes to big money.
Fair point. I am also suggesting it was a serious problem in 2012 that was already recognized by the government. Hard to think of a period in recent memory when China has not been considered a threat for this kind of thing.
Furthermore, juxtaposing the two statements implies a sort of grey area like that doesn’t make sense here. It’s hard to draw any conclusion other than greed and/or malice.
But then again, people can be smart in some areas and quite error prone in others. This was a really terrible miscalculation.
Furthermore, juxtaposing the two statements implies a sort of grey area like that doesn’t make sense here. It’s hard to draw any conclusion other than greed and/or malice.
But then again, people can be smart in some areas and quite error prone in others. This was a really terrible miscalculation.
I have a real hard time getting past "oh well nobody cares now I'll just lie to U.S. Defense Department....".
If you're lying to them, maybe someone cares.
If you're lying to them, maybe someone cares.
Chinese espionage on college campuses was very much on the government radar in 2012.
The paperwork telling him to disclose was probabbly a big hint.
The talks about China as a serious geopolitical rival go back a while longer than 2012, but even so, if he was completely unaware of any potential conflict of interest then he obviously could have disclosed this funding.
The fact that he hid it I think makes very clear that he was aware of the problematic nature of taking that money.
The fact that he hid it I think makes very clear that he was aware of the problematic nature of taking that money.
The president of the US in 2012 made fun of his opposition for calling Russia a serious national security threat.
It is bizarre how for so many that history just never happened. Not just the president but the press. At least the president was something of a man of "nuance", always trying to take positions somewhere in the middle. Though I do recall it was a somewhat awkward process as he came around to making increasingly stronger stands against his successor.
Of course the press (not to mention twitter mob) just toggled from the extreme on one side to the other.
Of course the press (not to mention twitter mob) just toggled from the extreme on one side to the other.
It's not a threat to the national security of a nation surrounded by two oceans, and in possession of six thousand nuclear bombs, but it's a threat to some national political ambitions.
Whether those ambitions are worth pursuing is another matter entirely.
Whether those ambitions are worth pursuing is another matter entirely.
> He could not predict the change of direction of the U.S. foreign policy. How could he predict this in 2012?
This isn't really that relevant, all he had to do was disclose his connections. It's not the crime, it's the cover up. The US govt certainly understands hundreds if not thousands of academics have connections to China. It's not a crime to accept research money. It's lying about it that's the issue. If you're lying to the country about who you work for, what else are you lying about?
This isn't really that relevant, all he had to do was disclose his connections. It's not the crime, it's the cover up. The US govt certainly understands hundreds if not thousands of academics have connections to China. It's not a crime to accept research money. It's lying about it that's the issue. If you're lying to the country about who you work for, what else are you lying about?
It is relevant, if it is not because of the change of direction of the U.S. foreign policy, he can still keep undetected.
> change of direction of the U.S. foreign policy, he can still keep undetected.
I don't think he would have remained undetected and the timing of all of this isn't that important. The recipients of the 1000 talents programs aren't some huge secret. It's actually very likely that the government knew all along and was seeing who would lie about it. If he had disclosed his connections, he wouldn't be facing charges.
It's not a crime to accept research money from China as an academic. It is a crime to accept money from China, lie to the government about it, then accept US govt defense dollars.
Imagine if you were working at AWS but moonlighting at Google Cloud. No one would bat an eye if you were fired and taken to court.
I don't think he would have remained undetected and the timing of all of this isn't that important. The recipients of the 1000 talents programs aren't some huge secret. It's actually very likely that the government knew all along and was seeing who would lie about it. If he had disclosed his connections, he wouldn't be facing charges.
It's not a crime to accept research money from China as an academic. It is a crime to accept money from China, lie to the government about it, then accept US govt defense dollars.
Imagine if you were working at AWS but moonlighting at Google Cloud. No one would bat an eye if you were fired and taken to court.
I think being asked to disclose at the time should tell him clearly what to do.
Wasn't China the #1 fear in 2012. More around the economy taking over/high growth rates / pegged currency. Russia only came back in vogue after Trump/election.
You have this a bit backwards. Russia sanctions predate Trump and were kept in place by Congress despite his efforts to overturn them. They were not put in place by Trump.
[deleted]
In 2012, he agreed to accept what he likely considered prize money and renting his name as an endorsement. I doubt he did much work for WUT. Fast forward to today and the Thousand Talents Program is considered an espionage tool by the US Senate, and when he is asked about it, he lies to both Harvard and the DoD. He is in deep shit.
I think how much trouble he is in is going to come down to whether he notified the IRS of the Chinese bank accounts. There is nothing juries hate more than millionaires who cheat on their taxes and it will look terrible if he hid the money.
I think how much trouble he is in is going to come down to whether he notified the IRS of the Chinese bank accounts. There is nothing juries hate more than millionaires who cheat on their taxes and it will look terrible if he hid the money.
> In 2012, he agreed to accept what he likely considered prize money and renting his name as an endorsement.
If you are a tenured/tenure-track professor at a tier-1 research university, your name is literally your career - you don't rent this out lightly on some whim. You also don't take money from another institution to create the 'X+Y University Collaborative Research Lab' without running this by legal.
Further, the affidavit outlines more involved collaboration (co-advising / hosting / advising students, $800k to build a joint-lab etc).
If you are a tenured/tenure-track professor at a tier-1 research university, your name is literally your career - you don't rent this out lightly on some whim. You also don't take money from another institution to create the 'X+Y University Collaborative Research Lab' without running this by legal.
Further, the affidavit outlines more involved collaboration (co-advising / hosting / advising students, $800k to build a joint-lab etc).
He's a smart guy. Maybe not wise or ethical though.
While no one figures it out, China wins.
When some one figures it out, US loses a top researcher.
Win-win for China. Why wouldn't they play this game? It's a guaranteed win.
While no one figures it out, China wins.
When some one figures it out, US loses a top researcher.
Win-win for China. Why wouldn't they play this game? It's a guaranteed win.
Additionally, it's systematic, from the article and in the same week:
Yanqing Ye, 29, who is currently in China, is charged with one count each of "visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy." She had been working at Boston University and is accused of lying about her position as a lieutenant in the Chinese military.
Zaosong Zheng, 30, was arrested last month at Boston's Logan International Airport and is charged with allegedly attempting to smuggle vials of biological materials and other research materials stolen from U.S labs. Zheng, who was a a Harvard-sponsored cancer researcher, has been indicted on that charge along with a count of making false statements.
Yanqing Ye, 29, who is currently in China, is charged with one count each of "visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy." She had been working at Boston University and is accused of lying about her position as a lieutenant in the Chinese military.
Zaosong Zheng, 30, was arrested last month at Boston's Logan International Airport and is charged with allegedly attempting to smuggle vials of biological materials and other research materials stolen from U.S labs. Zheng, who was a a Harvard-sponsored cancer researcher, has been indicted on that charge along with a count of making false statements.
I don’t think the article suggests China did anything nefarious, other than paying a US professor to do some research in China and help develop a university in China. Which in my opinion is what every other country should try to do with good foreign researchers. In this case the game seems to be played by the researcher.
> While no one figures it out, China wins.
Do they though? If China is hiring people who don't honestly fulfill their disclosure requirements, it may be the case that they're getting people who fake research results as well. They're actually selecting for low levels of integrity.
Do they though? If China is hiring people who don't honestly fulfill their disclosure requirements, it may be the case that they're getting people who fake research results as well. They're actually selecting for low levels of integrity.
Professor != researcher. It's more like a research manager. Not a huge loss to the field.
I would be willing to bet money that there are literally 0 tier-1 tenured research professors that didn't make significant contributions 'on their own' before becoming PI's in the US. (although 'on their own' is questionable anyway since this was probably in someone else's lab)..
Yes, they've made those contributions in the past. By the time they become professors they're mostly mooching off their grad students' work.
A nicer way to put it would be they're managing and directing research projects.
Also makes it easier to poach info from multiple research streams...
Also makes it easier to poach info from multiple research streams...
> I wonder how he thought he would get away with it?
Simple. Most institutions simply do not CHECK. Think about how you'd detect that this is happening. You'd need to somehow gain evidence that they hold a bank account that is receiving funds originating from China.
Not easy. In fact, damn near impossible.
So let's look at this case...
> Lieber was also awarded more than $1.5 million by WUT and the Chinese government to establish a research lab and conduct research at Wuhan University of Technology.
> For a large part of the time frame in question, Lieber was also the principal investigator on at least six U.S. Defense Department research grants
...ah ha. So the DoD caught him because he was being so blatant.
Simple. Most institutions simply do not CHECK. Think about how you'd detect that this is happening. You'd need to somehow gain evidence that they hold a bank account that is receiving funds originating from China.
Not easy. In fact, damn near impossible.
So let's look at this case...
> Lieber was also awarded more than $1.5 million by WUT and the Chinese government to establish a research lab and conduct research at Wuhan University of Technology.
> For a large part of the time frame in question, Lieber was also the principal investigator on at least six U.S. Defense Department research grants
...ah ha. So the DoD caught him because he was being so blatant.
> Not easy. In fact, damn near impossible.
Simply not true. FATCA is a thing, and the USG is comfortable hammering foreign banks for info. It's a lot harder with China, but they absolutely comply: https://www.china-briefing.com/news/china-agrees-fatca-compl...
This is also why that Chinese money goes to Canada (esp. Vancouver) -- the Canadian government doesn't dig as hard.
Simply not true. FATCA is a thing, and the USG is comfortable hammering foreign banks for info. It's a lot harder with China, but they absolutely comply: https://www.china-briefing.com/news/china-agrees-fatca-compl...
This is also why that Chinese money goes to Canada (esp. Vancouver) -- the Canadian government doesn't dig as hard.
I don't see how FACTA is relevant here.
1. FACTS doesn't report domestic accounts that are funded by foreign sources.
2. Harvard didn't catch this - the DoD did.
The point is that other schools could not possibly detect this sort of behavior unless it becomes as wildly blatant as this guy did it.
1. FACTS doesn't report domestic accounts that are funded by foreign sources.
2. Harvard didn't catch this - the DoD did.
The point is that other schools could not possibly detect this sort of behavior unless it becomes as wildly blatant as this guy did it.
>>Even if he could hide the money run of the mill espionage could find it.
According to the affidavit, there was a paper trail, contracts on both countries with a suspected spy agency, er University research department, etc etc. Not sure he knew what he really got into. Maybe did it once and then he got used to the money
According to the affidavit, there was a paper trail, contracts on both countries with a suspected spy agency, er University research department, etc etc. Not sure he knew what he really got into. Maybe did it once and then he got used to the money
It might be a misunderstanding about our legal system and what is a serious issue versus one that can be overlooked or patched up somehow.
Maybe like a foolish US tourist taking some recreational drugs to China?
(I'm not comparing the two issues in a moral way, just to show how different crimes can be minor/serious in different countries.)
Maybe like a foolish US tourist taking some recreational drugs to China?
(I'm not comparing the two issues in a moral way, just to show how different crimes can be minor/serious in different countries.)
Lieber requested that half of his money be deposited into a Chinese bank account and other half be paid to him in cash when he next visit WUT.
https://twitter.com/gbrumfiel/status/1222217996959199234?s=2...
Amazing evidence that he knew it was illicit. Quite ironic too, considering how many Chinese are trying to get money out of China.
If he had started a company on the side (legal) then the Chinese could have bought it (legal) for a fortune. Lesson is, get legal advice!
If he had started a company on the side (legal) then the Chinese could have bought it (legal) for a fortune. Lesson is, get legal advice!
Have you tried getting money transfered internationally? At my level of understanding I can find many legit reasons for this course of action.
He could have asked them to deposit it into his US bank account, it really isn't that hard to do a wire transfer. It doesn't make sense to pay $30 in fees when you are only sending $500, but for $50k its a blip.
For Chinese citizens it isn't easy, but for govt and institutions it is.
For Chinese citizens it isn't easy, but for govt and institutions it is.
But pretty much every western bank sends all bank details of US nationals to the US, under the threat of heavy penalty.
What is your point? That he is entitled to engage in tax avoidance?
That there is no point to open a bank account outside of China if he is trying to hide the money from the US.
He literally had an operational lab in Wuhan at WUT, WHILE working on US DoD contracts.
...I mean, how blatant can you get?
...I mean, how blatant can you get?
10 years ago I was in academia. We were actively encouraged, even required, to find outside funding. Government would look at a bid for 1m and say "find 500k from someone else and we will match it". It was good practice.
Who were the people providing all that finding? The Chinese mostly.
Now we're in the middle of "sino-panic" and suddenly every cent (Renminbi?) is suspect.
I am happy to admit this guy was dishonest and deserves what he gets. But I worry this is the "thin end of the wedge". National security laws are draconian by design and aiming them at researchers continuing policies that were previously supported is both unfair and counterproductive.
To me, the whole China "thing" seems like a political witch hunt to avoid talking about real issues (impeachment, the 2020 elections, automation, the fact we have no idea what to do with all the people we can't find jobs for).
The weird claims about Huawei infrastructure falls into the same boat: picking a (cold) war to distract from other issues.
Beware where this goes.
Who were the people providing all that finding? The Chinese mostly.
Now we're in the middle of "sino-panic" and suddenly every cent (Renminbi?) is suspect.
I am happy to admit this guy was dishonest and deserves what he gets. But I worry this is the "thin end of the wedge". National security laws are draconian by design and aiming them at researchers continuing policies that were previously supported is both unfair and counterproductive.
To me, the whole China "thing" seems like a political witch hunt to avoid talking about real issues (impeachment, the 2020 elections, automation, the fact we have no idea what to do with all the people we can't find jobs for).
The weird claims about Huawei infrastructure falls into the same boat: picking a (cold) war to distract from other issues.
Beware where this goes.
We can focus on "real issues" while also recognizing the active espionage and cyber-warfare being conducted by the Chinese. Healthcare is a huge priority for them and it is not hard to find cases of them setting up state security agents as professors to induce masters and phd candidates to perform spying while working at e.g. NIH.
China's reputation for business and state espionage is not some racist or xenophobic trend; it comes from years of them performing said espionage.
China's reputation for business and state espionage is not some racist or xenophobic trend; it comes from years of them performing said espionage.
My favorite Chinese cyber espionage story is the one that was just randomly found when a team was conducting a routine pen-test.
Darknet Diaries source: https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/21/
Darknet Diaries source: https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/21/
Can you link me to that case? It sounds very interesting but my Googlefu is weak...
Not specifically the NIH, but someone was recently arrested trying to take work from a hospital's cancer research lab back to China: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/12/30/chinese-medical... The article mentions that the NIH has 180+ active investigations, although it sounds like those are based more on funding sources than straight-up espionage
I don't understand why anyone would spy on the NIH. It isn't like they work in secret. Every bit of work done by their scientists and grant recipients will end up published in the appropriate journal.
Spying can mean more than just gathering information. Subversion and control of our institutions seem desirable goals for example.
China has reached a point of influence where they are able to effect censorship within western countries. Do you not consider that a real issue?
https://bgr.com/2019/10/09/blizzard-hong-kong-ban-china-cens...
https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/china-censorship-nba-south...!
Over 20 companies: https://mashable.com/article/china-censorship-companies-hong...
https://bgr.com/2019/10/09/blizzard-hong-kong-ban-china-cens...
https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/china-censorship-nba-south...!
Over 20 companies: https://mashable.com/article/china-censorship-companies-hong...
I don't see how that's relevant?
Also, I'm sure it's not you're intent, but questioning me about why I don't dislike China for reasons other than the things being discussed is pretty Mccarthy-esque... Am I not loyal unless I support this arrest?
Also, I'm sure it's not you're intent, but questioning me about why I don't dislike China for reasons other than the things being discussed is pretty Mccarthy-esque... Am I not loyal unless I support this arrest?
You're accusing people of irrational fear of china and the poster is challenging you with evidence that the fear is rational. If you assumed good faith your "loyalty" is not relevant.
This is exactly correct. Thank you.
unishark said it better than I could
"You're accusing people of irrational fear of china and the poster is challenging you with evidence that the fear is rational. If you assumed good faith your "loyalty" is not relevant."
"You're accusing people of irrational fear of china and the poster is challenging you with evidence that the fear is rational. If you assumed good faith your "loyalty" is not relevant."
> Re: Huawei
Remember Stanford physics professor Shoucheng Zhang?
"The close timing of Zhang’s death with the USTR report’s release — as well as the same-day arrest of the CFO of Huawei, a Chinese telecommunications company now under fire for sanctions fraud — has fueled doubt within Chinese media that the scientist’s death occurred of his own accord."
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/12/30/following-stanford-...
Remember Stanford physics professor Shoucheng Zhang?
"The close timing of Zhang’s death with the USTR report’s release — as well as the same-day arrest of the CFO of Huawei, a Chinese telecommunications company now under fire for sanctions fraud — has fueled doubt within Chinese media that the scientist’s death occurred of his own accord."
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/12/30/following-stanford-...
You correctly observe that there is a fake-issue that distracts people, but then you suggest a number of other issues to focus on that could be just as distracting and seem just as fake as the first.
There are different types of fundings - some encourage you to find matching sponsors, some forbids you to do that explicitly.
Excuse me- the DoD has always had rules about foreign financial interests. Yes, 10 years ago, they had these rules. Your comment is absolutely ridiculous and ignorant.
> To me, the whole China "thing" seems like a political witch hunt to avoid talking about real issues (impeachment, the 2020 elections, automation, the fact we have no idea what to do with all the people we can't find jobs for).
The whole China thing started even before Trump got elected. Trump has been critical of China for decade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jdIshuoRBQ , Trump repeated this message in Primary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy9iY6CvAHU
The trade war started in 2017: https://www.china-briefing.com/news/the-us-china-trade-war-a...
FBI director stated China is No.1 threat in 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPi2uD__Ga8 , also: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-threat-to-america-fbi-...
No. It has nothing to do with impeachment or the 2020 election.
The whole China thing started even before Trump got elected. Trump has been critical of China for decade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jdIshuoRBQ , Trump repeated this message in Primary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy9iY6CvAHU
The trade war started in 2017: https://www.china-briefing.com/news/the-us-china-trade-war-a...
FBI director stated China is No.1 threat in 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPi2uD__Ga8 , also: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-threat-to-america-fbi-...
No. It has nothing to do with impeachment or the 2020 election.
It does seem to harken back to McCarthyism when put in that context, doesn't it?
I’m not really seeing the parallel. Unlike McCarthyism, this specific instance involves actual law breaking with enough factual basis that the government believes will result in a conviction.
It does. And as somebody who has harshly criticized Chinese domestic and foreign policy in the past on HN, I agree that cracking down on academics and technologists because of the behavior of their government is anti-intellectual and just as harmful here as it is there.
We need to simultaneously be vigilant against the dangers of other countries exploiting our confident and open stance, and also always keep our empathy for the people being oppressed by their states. I don't think that it's a balancing act, but a matter of dismantling the neoconservative and bleeding-heart-liberal mindsets, and finding a more holistic treatment of immigration and ethnic management; namely, less treatment. Over and over again, we interfere when our interests are violated, but avoid giving everybody a seat at the table when we re-assign the land; instead, we need to communicate more and interfere less.
...I'm going to have to think about this more, though, because as stated, this is a BDS strategy, and I'm not sure whether I endorse BDS strategies.
We need to simultaneously be vigilant against the dangers of other countries exploiting our confident and open stance, and also always keep our empathy for the people being oppressed by their states. I don't think that it's a balancing act, but a matter of dismantling the neoconservative and bleeding-heart-liberal mindsets, and finding a more holistic treatment of immigration and ethnic management; namely, less treatment. Over and over again, we interfere when our interests are violated, but avoid giving everybody a seat at the table when we re-assign the land; instead, we need to communicate more and interfere less.
...I'm going to have to think about this more, though, because as stated, this is a BDS strategy, and I'm not sure whether I endorse BDS strategies.
“In an affidavit unsealed Tuesday, FBI Special Agent Robert Plumb said Lieber, who led a Harvard research group focusing on nanoscience, had established a research lab at the Wuhan university — apparently unbeknownst to Harvard.”
This is pretty egregious, and it baffles me that he thought it would go undetected (or that his home institution wouldn’t object.)
This is pretty egregious, and it baffles me that he thought it would go undetected (or that his home institution wouldn’t object.)
He's wrong to not report conflict of interest on national defense funding, but how is establishing a lab elsewhere alone egregious?
Private research institutes, like corporations, don't own people who work for them.
Private research institutes, like corporations, don't own people who work for them.
The government alleges in the indictment that he signed a contract to setup a joint research lab between Harvard and the Chinese university without informing Harvard at all let alone obtaining its permission to enter the institution into such an agreement. It also alleges that he took all payments to a bank account in China or in cash when he traveled to China and took action to conceal the deal when Harvard and the government started asking questions about it.
If the allegations are true then he probably began by overstepping his authority at Harvard for his personal financial gain. He may have been reluctant to disclose the relationship as required for the US grants because doing so would have simultaneously disclosed to Harvard his egregious violation its policy, possibly resulting in termination of his employment.
Maybe he was hiding the money from the IRS as well, giving him further motive to conceal and deny.
Had he entered into the agreement strictly personally then he almost certainly would have told Harvard which would have disclosed it to the government. Maybe the Chinese sponsors wouldn't have offered as much money for that. Alternatively, he could have asked Harvard to enter into the agreement through the proper channels, but then in that case surely the university would be getting the money and not the professor personally.
If the allegations are true then he probably began by overstepping his authority at Harvard for his personal financial gain. He may have been reluctant to disclose the relationship as required for the US grants because doing so would have simultaneously disclosed to Harvard his egregious violation its policy, possibly resulting in termination of his employment.
Maybe he was hiding the money from the IRS as well, giving him further motive to conceal and deny.
Had he entered into the agreement strictly personally then he almost certainly would have told Harvard which would have disclosed it to the government. Maybe the Chinese sponsors wouldn't have offered as much money for that. Alternatively, he could have asked Harvard to enter into the agreement through the proper channels, but then in that case surely the university would be getting the money and not the professor personally.
It’s not a conflict of interest, it’s a lie on a background check that likely would have lost him the DoD grants.
I don’t think anyone is saying “don’t establish a lab” but if someone asks you whether you’re being paid by foreign interests you can’t just say “I don’t know who the organization is that had been paying me for years.”
This has nothing to do with conflict of interest, outside of the conflicts between DoD and whether clearances / grants are released to those that are being paid by other nation states.
I don’t think anyone is saying “don’t establish a lab” but if someone asks you whether you’re being paid by foreign interests you can’t just say “I don’t know who the organization is that had been paying me for years.”
This has nothing to do with conflict of interest, outside of the conflicts between DoD and whether clearances / grants are released to those that are being paid by other nation states.
You're totally right.
God knows why he wanted to lie, perhaps the DoD grants are really important for the lab. Giving how sensitive things are with China, I think it's fair to say that it would have had a large impact on those grants.
I do know some professor with 40+ graduates/post-graduates. It feels like academia have became mini feudal fiefdoms but instead of farming land it farm grants, with papers.
God knows why he wanted to lie, perhaps the DoD grants are really important for the lab. Giving how sensitive things are with China, I think it's fair to say that it would have had a large impact on those grants.
I do know some professor with 40+ graduates/post-graduates. It feels like academia have became mini feudal fiefdoms but instead of farming land it farm grants, with papers.
Importantly, he was working on multiple US DoD grants at the same time.
> "These grants require the disclosure of significant foreign financial conflicts of interest, including financial support from foreign governments or foreign entities," the U.S. Attorney's Office in Massachusetts said in a statement announcing the charges against Lieber.
Did you read my comment? My parent comment did not mention the conflict of interest while I did.
I completely agree with you: collaboration is no crime in science. Obviously, we will both be downvoted to invisibility, because this site's users are fervent nationalists, not scientists.
You are a scientist? Maybe you never worked in a university as a full time employee?
Faculty are required to report outside jobs, see: https://provost.harvard.edu/statement-outside-activities-hol...
Do you know when you accept big grant you also must follow similar rules?
Yes, you can collaborate in science, but you do not live in a vacuum, scientists also need to follow the rules of a society.
Faculty are required to report outside jobs, see: https://provost.harvard.edu/statement-outside-activities-hol...
Do you know when you accept big grant you also must follow similar rules?
Yes, you can collaborate in science, but you do not live in a vacuum, scientists also need to follow the rules of a society.
The rules itself is egrigeous, that's why there is an incentive for lying in the first place.
If the goal is for science, there shouldn't be restriction on working with other country in order to accept grant.
If the goal is for science, there shouldn't be restriction on working with other country in order to accept grant.
Then by all means, collaborate. But don't lie to get grant money.
Outright lying != collaboration.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Some context:
Original charge: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/harvard-university-profes...
This one is safe at home: https://www.masslive.com/boston/2020/01/chinese-peoples-libe...
Original charge: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/harvard-university-profes...
This one is safe at home: https://www.masslive.com/boston/2020/01/chinese-peoples-libe...
Of course the guy should have disclosed everything to his funding sources, but from a scientist's viewpoint, the shock and outrage is confusing. Prominent scientists travel between institutions all the time, managing multiple groups -- it is common to see, on a senior professor's CV, appointments at 5 different institutes in 3 different countries (say, America, India, and Germany). That's a fundamental part of doing science. I benefit from it, and I pay it back by making all the notes and papers I produce freely available.
If the moral principle here is that countries shouldn't try to draw scientific talent from other countries, well, the United States is by far the greatest perpetrator of brain drain in the world. A lot of countries have been sucked dry by it, including China itself in the past!
If people are actually this worried about scientific knowledge crossing national borders, it won't stop with Prof. Lieber. They'll continue by banning textbook exports, taking down lecture videos, and raiding the Wikipedia servers. While they're at it, they can put up a Great Firewall of their own. That's the only direction I see this going.
If the moral principle here is that countries shouldn't try to draw scientific talent from other countries, well, the United States is by far the greatest perpetrator of brain drain in the world. A lot of countries have been sucked dry by it, including China itself in the past!
If people are actually this worried about scientific knowledge crossing national borders, it won't stop with Prof. Lieber. They'll continue by banning textbook exports, taking down lecture videos, and raiding the Wikipedia servers. While they're at it, they can put up a Great Firewall of their own. That's the only direction I see this going.
Note:
> criminally charged with making "false, fictitious and fraudulent statements"...
> In interviews with Defense Department investigators in 2018 and 2019, Lieber said that while he had heard of the Thousand Talents Plan, he had never been asked to be part of it...
The charge is not promiscuous collaboration, it's lying about it when asked.
If he indeed lied to DoD investigators following up on a possible conflict of interest, that would be a huge problem, on top of (we could guess) an original failure to disclose.
> criminally charged with making "false, fictitious and fraudulent statements"...
> In interviews with Defense Department investigators in 2018 and 2019, Lieber said that while he had heard of the Thousand Talents Plan, he had never been asked to be part of it...
The charge is not promiscuous collaboration, it's lying about it when asked.
If he indeed lied to DoD investigators following up on a possible conflict of interest, that would be a huge problem, on top of (we could guess) an original failure to disclose.
The underlying assumption here is that he was conducting research funded by the DoD and replicating it at his lab in China.
So.... espionage.
So.... espionage.
As I said, he should have been clear with his funding sources. But that's not where the outrage in this thread is coming from -- everybody here is pissed off at the very idea of scientific collaboration crossing national borders. There are comparisons being drawn between doing science and waging war. This is saddening.
I'm not sure what this thread looked like an hour ago, but I don't see very many comments outraged at the point you indicate.
All this guy had to do was email the department chair and fill out a form, no big deal. It's common to have international affiliations.
All this guy had to do was email the department chair and fill out a form, no big deal. It's common to have international affiliations.
I believe you are misinterpreting the sentiment. Everyone is pissed off at his dishonesty, not where and who he worked for. Rather than openly disclose his collaborations, as you and your many colleagues do, he was actively trying to cover them up, putting greed ahead of science.
On balance, your comment did gloss over the "taking money from two sources" issue, which is the point of the arrest.
If you wanted to have a conversation about maintaining scientific collaboration in the midst of great power competition, this seems like the wrong case to build off of.
Finally, I do agree that conversations about China on HN often do go south due to US nationalism.
If you wanted to have a conversation about maintaining scientific collaboration in the midst of great power competition, this seems like the wrong case to build off of.
Finally, I do agree that conversations about China on HN often do go south due to US nationalism.
[deleted]
No, my point is that it is extremely common to take money from two sources, or even more! Nobody batted an eye at this, and in fact even today nobody bats an eye, unless one of the sources is in China. In that case it becomes "luring talent" and "IP theft", with all the trappings of selectively applied moral principle.
Real IP theft would look like, say, abducting thousands of German scientists at gunpoint [0], not giving scientists grants to set up labs.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
Real IP theft would look like, say, abducting thousands of German scientists at gunpoint [0], not giving scientists grants to set up labs.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
OK, I realize in using the shorthand "take money from two sources", I have clouded the issue. Sorry about that.
As always, the actual issue is the failure to disclose the possible CoI -- as in the present case.
It sucks, BTW. Turns out the guy was the PhD advisor of my neighbor up the street.
As always, the actual issue is the failure to disclose the possible CoI -- as in the present case.
It sucks, BTW. Turns out the guy was the PhD advisor of my neighbor up the street.
I don't disagree with this, but what I don't understand is the nationalist outrage.
Suppose a professor slacked off on their job by taking a long vacation in France. That would be wrong and deserving of punishment -- but it wouldn't have set off panic over him "selling out" the country. Yet that is what is happening.
Suppose a professor slacked off on their job by taking a long vacation in France. That would be wrong and deserving of punishment -- but it wouldn't have set off panic over him "selling out" the country. Yet that is what is happening.
It's also good to suspend judgement until the case works its way through the courts.
The Wen Ho Lee case is a point of reference here - he was accused of the worst kind of espionage and "convicted" after leaks in the NYT - but then the case dissolved and Lee got a big settlement.
The Wen Ho Lee case is a point of reference here - he was accused of the worst kind of espionage and "convicted" after leaks in the NYT - but then the case dissolved and Lee got a big settlement.
I don't think it's "nationalist outrage". The outrage is over violating the rules, as many developers and scientists on HN have done work for the government, and followed the rules. I believe you are seeing a connection (given US government and US commenters) that simply isn't there. Correlation doesn't equal causation; that's a first rule of science.
Sometimes correlation implies causation though: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B077YGFJ8N/ref=dp-kindle-redirec...
Can you link to some comments showing this nationalist outrage?
All I see is people going "he was dumb to lie about it".
All I see is people going "he was dumb to lie about it".
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22177621
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22176877
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22176830
Of course I found them at the bottom where they belong, so I think knzhou is misreading the prevailing sentiment.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22176877
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22176830
Of course I found them at the bottom where they belong, so I think knzhou is misreading the prevailing sentiment.
They are all pretty low-value comments, but only one of them seems to be a nationalist criticism (or two if you count "paid millions to to assist a foreign government - which I think is political but barely nationalist).
Not common (and acceptable) if you are taking grants from ONR, DARPA or Air Force grants.
While being literally abducted is definitely a conflict of interest that might concern a grantor, I do believe many grantors may have legitimate concerns below that threshold.
> There are comparisons being drawn between doing science and waging war.
Why do you think the DoD funds grants?
Why do you think the DoD funds grants?
I'm a little outraged that he was making more, per month and from his ostensible "side-gig", than the postdocs in his lab make in a year.
Yeah, per month alone it's more than I make in a year. That's sadly how big science works, China has nothing to do with that.
The sheer scale of it--and the fact that a lot of it was done in cash, behind the university's back--certainly make it look suspect.
I would be unsurprised if he was given several opportunities to come clean. He was arrested for lying over and over again. I’ve applied for and won government grants from both the NIH and DOD. There are clear places to list these conflicts in the application. There are additional times you are asked after you win a grant. And he is accused of then lying to a DOD investigator and investigators from the NIH.
He isn’t accused of any crimes for having a joint appointment. He is accused of lying about the fact that he had a joint appointment.
He isn’t accused of any crimes for having a joint appointment. He is accused of lying about the fact that he had a joint appointment.
He knew he would lose US grants and access to labs if he was employed by the Chinese. But he wanted their money, so he lied to the US Govt systematically, and then directly when asked about it.
Obviously this behaviour is absolutely mad, and until you meet one of these huge ego guys is seems unlikely, but so many of them have a huge sense of their own importance.
One hopes that other prominent researchers will understand the lesson.
Obviously this behaviour is absolutely mad, and until you meet one of these huge ego guys is seems unlikely, but so many of them have a huge sense of their own importance.
One hopes that other prominent researchers will understand the lesson.
Hope it was worth it for him. His career as he knew it is over for all intents and purposes.
He could become the von Braun of China...
"If the moral principle here is that countries shouldn't try to draw scientific talent from other countries"
I think even the most nationalist and hawkish members of the elite/gov/administration fully understand the value of research and that it's international. The US missile and nuclear program were built by foreign, often formerly 'baddy' scientist after all.
At the same time, anything of strategic importance in China is tied to the state and therefore tied to all their other shifty activities.
The 'Red Scare' of the Cold War was based on very legitimate concerns, unfortunately, there were people who shouldn't have been dragged into the net caught up in it - and so this is the issue: how to act, where to draw the line, legal and moral legitimacy etc..
China speaks with one voice, the West speaks with a thousand voices (heads of state, research, government, military, NGO etc.) and they're playing a very aggressive game of 'divide and conquer' which warrants a ton of scrutiny.
Our job is to figure out how to counter the threat and to make tough decisions ... whilst minimizing damage, goodwill, and keeping an eye on some future where we all get along.
Unfortunately, I feel this tension may last a long time.
I think even the most nationalist and hawkish members of the elite/gov/administration fully understand the value of research and that it's international. The US missile and nuclear program were built by foreign, often formerly 'baddy' scientist after all.
At the same time, anything of strategic importance in China is tied to the state and therefore tied to all their other shifty activities.
The 'Red Scare' of the Cold War was based on very legitimate concerns, unfortunately, there were people who shouldn't have been dragged into the net caught up in it - and so this is the issue: how to act, where to draw the line, legal and moral legitimacy etc..
China speaks with one voice, the West speaks with a thousand voices (heads of state, research, government, military, NGO etc.) and they're playing a very aggressive game of 'divide and conquer' which warrants a ton of scrutiny.
Our job is to figure out how to counter the threat and to make tough decisions ... whilst minimizing damage, goodwill, and keeping an eye on some future where we all get along.
Unfortunately, I feel this tension may last a long time.
Isn't it a strange coincidence that all of America's enemies (the Axis, the USSR, now China) "spoke with one voice"? This is just the well-known outgroup homogeneity bias [0]. Everyone lives in a bubble. You don't hear about other groups' internal divisions, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
It's a subtle bias, but an insidious one. It has led to people reading my comments and thinking "His tone doesn't match up with the hysteria of the news article... so he must be a Communist party shill!" I wouldn't fare well in a second red scare; this is not a future to which I want to go.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity
It's a subtle bias, but an insidious one. It has led to people reading my comments and thinking "His tone doesn't match up with the hysteria of the news article... so he must be a Communist party shill!" I wouldn't fare well in a second red scare; this is not a future to which I want to go.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity
When questioned, Lieber said he had never even heard of the “One Thousand Talent” program, yet he was earning a significant amount of money from that program. Moreover, the money he was paid was deposited into a Chinese bank account and given to him in cash.
He knew that he was lying about his associations and went to incredible depths to cover up this lie. No reasonable person would consider that collaboration. What’s with your pro-China bias?
He knew that he was lying about his associations and went to incredible depths to cover up this lie. No reasonable person would consider that collaboration. What’s with your pro-China bias?
Because this wouldn't be national news if it were any country but China, and if things continue the way they're going, at best I'll get deported without cause. I know that I can't change any minds on a forum like this, where any comment that isn't fully critical is "biased", but I can't go without at least trying.
The guy downright lied about a huge financial incentive. There's no excuse or valid "America bad" angle to spin this.
> It says the deal called for Lieber to be paid up to $50,000 a month, in addition to $150,000 per year "for living and personal expenses."
"Lieber was also awarded more than $1.5 million by WUT and the Chinese government to establish a research lab and conduct research at WUT," the document states.
For a large part of the time frame in question, Lieber was also the principal investigator on at least six U.S. Defense Department research grants, with a cumulative value of more than $8 million, according to the affidavit. It also says he was the principal investigator on more than $10 million in grants funded by the National Institutes of Health.
"These grants require the disclosure of significant foreign financial conflicts of interest, including financial support from foreign governments or foreign entities," the U.S. Attorney's Office in Massachusetts said in a statement announcing the charges against Lieber.
In interviews with Defense Department investigators in 2018 and 2019, Lieber said that while he had heard of the Thousand Talents Plan, he had never been asked to be part of it, according to the affidavit. Lieber's email correspondence suggests he signed a three-year agreement and employment contract with WUT in 2012.
"Lieber was obligated to work for WUT 'not less than nine months a year' by 'declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of' WUT," the U.S. Attorney's Office said.
> It says the deal called for Lieber to be paid up to $50,000 a month, in addition to $150,000 per year "for living and personal expenses."
"Lieber was also awarded more than $1.5 million by WUT and the Chinese government to establish a research lab and conduct research at WUT," the document states.
For a large part of the time frame in question, Lieber was also the principal investigator on at least six U.S. Defense Department research grants, with a cumulative value of more than $8 million, according to the affidavit. It also says he was the principal investigator on more than $10 million in grants funded by the National Institutes of Health.
"These grants require the disclosure of significant foreign financial conflicts of interest, including financial support from foreign governments or foreign entities," the U.S. Attorney's Office in Massachusetts said in a statement announcing the charges against Lieber.
In interviews with Defense Department investigators in 2018 and 2019, Lieber said that while he had heard of the Thousand Talents Plan, he had never been asked to be part of it, according to the affidavit. Lieber's email correspondence suggests he signed a three-year agreement and employment contract with WUT in 2012.
"Lieber was obligated to work for WUT 'not less than nine months a year' by 'declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of' WUT," the U.S. Attorney's Office said.
For people not US citizens or who have never dealt with the federal government it may be confusing. When the US federal government asks you a question about money and you lie, you are literally putting everything (career, freedom, family, life) in serious jeopardy. "Jeopardy" may not be the right word, it's basically just a matter of time before your conclusion is reached.
Again, as I said, not being clear about everything to your funding sources is definitely bad. But the specific outrage doesn't make sense. What does it mean to have a "conflict of interest" and a "financial incentive" when you're doing basic science? Science isn't like working for a corporation or the military. The end goal is to publish your results for the entire world to see.
The funders are paying for work that isn't being done.
Grants usually specific the "percent effort" of key personnel. This not only determines the budget, but also factors into funding decisions. A proposal might be rejected as 'infeasible' if the PI isn't going to spend much time training the students or managing the work.
These numbers usually aren't exact--people certainly spend 19 (or fewer) hours per week on things that are nominally 50% effort--but having giant off-the-books projects, like running a whole separate lab--make them completely fictional.
Grants usually specific the "percent effort" of key personnel. This not only determines the budget, but also factors into funding decisions. A proposal might be rejected as 'infeasible' if the PI isn't going to spend much time training the students or managing the work.
These numbers usually aren't exact--people certainly spend 19 (or fewer) hours per week on things that are nominally 50% effort--but having giant off-the-books projects, like running a whole separate lab--make them completely fictional.
Pretty much every scientist who fills out those forms can explain to you what a conflict of interest is.
If you work in science, and don't get it, I suggest that you talk to your university ethics office.
If you work in science, and don't get it, I suggest that you talk to your university ethics office.
“What is a conflict of interest” is like one of the things that is taught (or should be taught) to everyone going into a research career. I know where I worked there where posters explaining it.
However most people I’ve dealt with just use the easy route and disclose all sources of funding.
However most people I’ve dealt with just use the easy route and disclose all sources of funding.
> America, India, and Germany
These countries aren't geopolitical threats to each other in any sense. China is. That's basically it.
These countries aren't geopolitical threats to each other in any sense. China is. That's basically it.
So the facts of the case are...
* Famous professor accepted money from China, then lied to authorities
* Famous professor also had DoD contracts which prohibit such connections without disclosure
* China is known for its IP transfer, strategic threats to both US power and democracy, and use of non-traditional intelligence sources, which is why such regulations about disclosure are required
Seems pretty reasonable. I'd imagine any government would want to know who they're working with before cutting them a check. If someone at AWS was moonlighting for Google Cloud, no one would bat an eye if they were fired, taken to court, and sued for everything they were worth.
* Famous professor accepted money from China, then lied to authorities
* Famous professor also had DoD contracts which prohibit such connections without disclosure
* China is known for its IP transfer, strategic threats to both US power and democracy, and use of non-traditional intelligence sources, which is why such regulations about disclosure are required
Seems pretty reasonable. I'd imagine any government would want to know who they're working with before cutting them a check. If someone at AWS was moonlighting for Google Cloud, no one would bat an eye if they were fired, taken to court, and sued for everything they were worth.
How is China a strategic threat to 'democracy'? China isn't supporting 'color revolutions' of its own kind.
China has stated that Western ideals like democracy are incompatible with their vision of the world. They have stated they will oppose democracy, everywhere, especially on other countries behalf.
[Citation needed]
This seems to support the idea that the CCP is opposed to democracy
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-politics-xi-idUSBRE...
It doesn't say anything supporting "they have stated they will oppose democracy, everywhere, especially on other countries behalf".
Further support for this can be found at.
https://qz.com/1225347/xi-jinping-says-chinas-one-party-auth...
https://qz.com/1225347/xi-jinping-says-chinas-one-party-auth...
It cannot provide 'further support' because the previous link doesn't provide any support at all.
This new link doesn't support that statement either.
Moreover, I've checked one quotation and it turned out to be taken completely out of context.
I invite you to provide specific facts that support the statement you are defending.
This new link doesn't support that statement either.
Moreover, I've checked one quotation and it turned out to be taken completely out of context.
I invite you to provide specific facts that support the statement you are defending.
Source: a great number of President Xi's speeches. A quick google search will get you many hits.
China has been making illegal donations to Australian politicians and bribing Japanese politicians.
I don't see how it makes China 'a strategic threat'.
It shows that it is actively working to undermine democratic functions.
No, it doesn't.
Politicians are bribed all the time, mostly by the citizens of their country.
Not in western democracies. Australia and Japan are the 12 and 20th least corrupt in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#2...
But politicians are among most corrupt public servants in Australia.
"The phenomenon has also been studied by the Australian National University, which produced a report called Perceptions of Corruption and Ethical Conduct (2012), which concluded: "there is a widespread perception that corruption in Australia has increased" and that "the media, trade unions and political parties were seen as Australia's most corrupt institutions."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Australia
"The phenomenon has also been studied by the Australian National University, which produced a report called Perceptions of Corruption and Ethical Conduct (2012), which concluded: "there is a widespread perception that corruption in Australia has increased" and that "the media, trade unions and political parties were seen as Australia's most corrupt institutions."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Australia
That measure explicitly measures perception of corruption, not actual corruption.
A low rating could just mwan high corruption covered by effective propaganda directed at the masses that lack the means to meaningfully engage in corruption.
A low rating could just mwan high corruption covered by effective propaganda directed at the masses that lack the means to meaningfully engage in corruption.
You must be willfully ignorant if you don't see all of China's work to influence Western countries in ways that are favourable to China, despite their despicable track record in ... I don't know, lots of things regarding human rights and individual freedoms.
And yeah, yeah. The US isn't perfect either, but I'm not afraid of the US using their influence to take away or undermine democracy in Germany.
And yeah, yeah. The US isn't perfect either, but I'm not afraid of the US using their influence to take away or undermine democracy in Germany.
Not in Germany, but in Africa, Latin America end Middle East, US has a history of undermining democracy.
[deleted]
And what have actually China done 'to take away or undermine the democracy' in Western countries?
Eric Weinstein on the matter - https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/122230320107390976...
Underpay? Top researchers at places like Harvard do very well from what I understand, especially if they consult on the side or sit on boards.
We’re talking several hundred thousand.
That’s not enough?
We’re talking several hundred thousand.
That’s not enough?
the comment says 'underpay ... relative to say Investment Bankers, VCs or mgmt consultants.'
the point as I see it is that if scientists are of strategic importance, they should be compensated accordingly to prevent the risk of bribery/defection - the same reason companies justify high pay to these other jobs to 'retain their talent'.
the point as I see it is that if scientists are of strategic importance, they should be compensated accordingly to prevent the risk of bribery/defection - the same reason companies justify high pay to these other jobs to 'retain their talent'.
isn't it well known that you make less money in academia than in business? The trade off is job security.
I'm sure he could go lead a lab at Exxon for millions but the moment he doesn't deliver he's fired.
I'm sure he could go lead a lab at Exxon for millions but the moment he doesn't deliver he's fired.
"several hundred thousand" per year is a less than the $750,000 that China was willing to pay according to the article.
So the argument is we should pay professors at least as much as the China are willing to bribe them with?
You’d have to ask the original author for clarification on what their argument is.
My interpretation of the argument is that labor markets are heavily driven by economic incentive. I can’t say I’ve seen much data to the contrary.
My interpretation of the argument is that labor markets are heavily driven by economic incentive. I can’t say I’ve seen much data to the contrary.
Charlie Lieber is the head of the fucking Harvard Chemistry department. He's not lacking in prestige or pay, I guarantee you that.
[deleted]
A similar situation recently led to the firing of the leadership at Moffitt Cancer Center in Florida too.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2019/12/18/moffitt-canc...
https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2019/12/18/moffitt-canc...
I remember just a few weeks ago there was a story on HN of a Russian scientist working on a government project "sharing" some research on hypersonic weapons with a NATO affiliated university somewhere in Europe. In the thread there I said a US scientist would get his ass thrown in jail in the US under the circumstances, which was downvoted.
It will be interesting to study the difference between that case and this one. So far the tone I'm seeing here is markedly different, and most people seem to be justifying the position of the DOJ.
It will be interesting to study the difference between that case and this one. So far the tone I'm seeing here is markedly different, and most people seem to be justifying the position of the DOJ.
Based on your description it sounds pretty different. In this case the professor is charged with lying to get funding.
OK it does look like he commuted an actual crime (perjury/false affidavit).
But more broadly: how is humanity helped by not spreading around the knowledge of basic science and the interconnection between scientists? This is all relating to work that will be published in journals after all.
But more broadly: how is humanity helped by not spreading around the knowledge of basic science and the interconnection between scientists? This is all relating to work that will be published in journals after all.
This guy was conducting DoD funded research, and then replicating that work secretly in a lab in China.
Literally espionage.
Literally espionage.
> This guy was conducting DoD funded research, and then replicating that work secretly in a lab in China. Literally espionage.
I did not see the FBI alleging this publicly. It is not in their affidavit. He did lie on his forms to the DoD and that is legitimately a (non-espionage) crime.
DoD funding does not in itself make something a national secret. I did plenty of work funded by DARPA in my youth (during the cold war!) all of which could be publicly talked about and no classification or really any constraints were involved. I did later do cryptographic work but that was controlled by the Department of Commerce and was certainly more constrained than anything I worked on paid for by DoD.
I don't know Harvard's policy but at MIT since problems in the 60s, all classified work is supposed to be segregated into separate MIT-affiliated operations like Lincoln Labs, MITRE, Draper etc. It looked like distribution his work was controlled at most by the publishing cartel of Elsevier et al.
I did not see the FBI alleging this publicly. It is not in their affidavit. He did lie on his forms to the DoD and that is legitimately a (non-espionage) crime.
DoD funding does not in itself make something a national secret. I did plenty of work funded by DARPA in my youth (during the cold war!) all of which could be publicly talked about and no classification or really any constraints were involved. I did later do cryptographic work but that was controlled by the Department of Commerce and was certainly more constrained than anything I worked on paid for by DoD.
I don't know Harvard's policy but at MIT since problems in the 60s, all classified work is supposed to be segregated into separate MIT-affiliated operations like Lincoln Labs, MITRE, Draper etc. It looked like distribution his work was controlled at most by the publishing cartel of Elsevier et al.
I was just watching this documentary the other day and I am actually not surprised. For anyone interested in this topic, should really have a look at this documentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdR-I35Ladk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdR-I35Ladk
[deleted]
the usual guilty until proven innocent..
Research shouldn’t be limited by politicians
As an alternative to the only other comment here, dressing this up as xenophobia:
> The arrangement between Lieber and the Chinese institution spanned "significant" periods of time between at least 2012 and 2017, according to the affidavit. It says the deal called for Lieber to be paid up to $50,000 a month, in addition to $150,000 per year "for living and personal expenses."
> "Lieber was also awarded more than $1.5 million by WUT and the Chinese government to establish a research lab and conduct research at WUT," the document states.
> For a large part of the time frame in question, Lieber was also the principal investigator on at least six U.S. Defense Department research grants, with a cumulative value of more than $8 million, according to the affidavit. It also says he was the principal investigator on more than $10 million in grants funded by the National Institutes of Health.
> The arrangement between Lieber and the Chinese institution spanned "significant" periods of time between at least 2012 and 2017, according to the affidavit. It says the deal called for Lieber to be paid up to $50,000 a month, in addition to $150,000 per year "for living and personal expenses."
> "Lieber was also awarded more than $1.5 million by WUT and the Chinese government to establish a research lab and conduct research at WUT," the document states.
> For a large part of the time frame in question, Lieber was also the principal investigator on at least six U.S. Defense Department research grants, with a cumulative value of more than $8 million, according to the affidavit. It also says he was the principal investigator on more than $10 million in grants funded by the National Institutes of Health.
leesalminen(1)
I consider it only a matter of time where the US will take the view that employing anyone born in mainland China, regardless of whether or not they're a US citizen, to be a security risk not worth taking for anything that requires security clearance or is otherwise sensitive or of national interest.
Well that is an interesting take. You might take a look at the Charles W. Lieber's photo and bio. He appears to be a white American. The wikipedia page doesn't say he wasn't born in China but still.
It seems like Lieber took his actions for money. If you are going to look at everyone potentially willing to sell out for money, you'll be doing a lot of looking.
It seems like Lieber took his actions for money. If you are going to look at everyone potentially willing to sell out for money, you'll be doing a lot of looking.
I take it you did not read the article.
It must be one of his Chinese graduate students who went back to work as a faculty in Wuhan and made him that offer. Not surprised at all and actually this kind of bribery has been practiced at lot among Chinese American faculties. But IMO it’s not a severe national security issue though as most Nanotechnology paper are just BS and being published purely for the sake of fundings from NSF. So it’s really unwise to lie on that matter.
The conspiracy theorist in me can't help but wonder if "leaking" forged documents of this nature could be an effective way for China or another foreign government to sabotage the leaders of the American research enterprise.
Of course, my inner cynic is leaning pretty heavily towards Occam's razor for this one.
Of course, my inner cynic is leaning pretty heavily towards Occam's razor for this one.
That would be pretty straightforward to dismiss with full transparency by the alleged perpetrator. There's definitely going to be corroborating evidence.
Oh, absolutely. I guess I was wondering if accusations alone would serve to substantially inconvenience or embitter individual scientists, or decrease public trust in academic research and academicians in general. Not trying to suggest that this case specifically is some foreign plot.
Not if that full transparency uncovered further forged documents which corroborated the accusations. If we're assuming a full on intelligence operation here then that wouldn't be significantly harder to pull off. After a couple more pieces of evidence the story would support itself and any inconsistencies would be blamed on the target's own attempts to cover up.
Last time, I said this was corporate fears of losing money dressed up as xenophobia and got pushback. Now the spooks are just stating it outright.
Chinese and American scientists have more in common with each other than we do with the elites that run the government and corporations to the detriment of the population.
We should loudly denounce the government interfering with free scientific exchange and funding. Science isn't a competition; it's meant to benefit all of us regardless of nationality.
Edit: Last time they were messing with a researcher that was working on cancer treatments. They were worried he'd "steal" cancer treatments and give them to Chinese people! The nerve!
Chinese and American scientists have more in common with each other than we do with the elites that run the government and corporations to the detriment of the population.
We should loudly denounce the government interfering with free scientific exchange and funding. Science isn't a competition; it's meant to benefit all of us regardless of nationality.
Edit: Last time they were messing with a researcher that was working on cancer treatments. They were worried he'd "steal" cancer treatments and give them to Chinese people! The nerve!
I don't get this sentiment at all. China is notorious for stealing IP, they're a major military player (threat), and this professor lied about his ties to China and still worked on DoD funded projects. The government reaction seems pretty reasonable.
What exactly is the Chinese “threat” here?
Are they going to send a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier loaded with soldiers to invade the shores of Seattle and Los Angeles? And then claim the mainland United States as their own property?
Are they going to send a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier loaded with soldiers to invade the shores of Seattle and Los Angeles? And then claim the mainland United States as their own property?
That's a straw man, I never said they're an invasion threat. They're a threat to US military superiority.
[deleted]
Seattle and LA no. But are they going to make territorial claims over islands in the South China Sea, islands that are also claimed by US allies such as the Philippines, South Korea and Japan?
Will they use the threat of military force in an attempt to support those claims?
Well yes they have already done so.
Countries are continually jockeying for power.
There's cyber wars, trade wars, cultural wars.
Not the countries. The "elites".
It isn't like he's arguing for a preemptive strike against China. Just a rule about giving taxpayer funding to their agents (which is what one becomes when agreeing to work on their behalf)
Many many projects are DoD funded and have little to nothing to do with immediate military applications. China is a threat to US hegemony in its own backyard, but to state that China is a threat to actual US citizens is kind of absurd. We're over there, they're not over here!
They're not over here - yet. Never in the history of the world has there been a surveillance state like they're building, there's no telling how effective it might end up being.
Do you really think any student gets near anything that could remotely impact national security without a background check?
This is Charles Lieber's latest paper: http://cml.harvard.edu/assets/Nanowire-probes-could-drive-hi...
It's a review article on nanowires, and in the acknowledgements an Air Force is listed, obviously because a student's salary is funded by the Air Force. The guy is stupider than the FBI permits but there is no reason to drift into xenophobia.
This is Charles Lieber's latest paper: http://cml.harvard.edu/assets/Nanowire-probes-could-drive-hi...
It's a review article on nanowires, and in the acknowledgements an Air Force is listed, obviously because a student's salary is funded by the Air Force. The guy is stupider than the FBI permits but there is no reason to drift into xenophobia.
[deleted]
>> China is notorious for stealing IP,
> xenophobia
Really? So stating that China steals IP is now "xenophobia"?
> xenophobia
Really? So stating that China steals IP is now "xenophobia"?
"We should loudly denounce the government interfering with free scientific exchange and funding"
$18M his funding was from the government (NIH and DoD). With those grants he agreed to disclose foreign funding sources. He failed to do so.
Agreed, this is made clear in the process of NIH, DoD funding. Initially I thought prosecutors and media wasre overreacting, but the scale of both the foreign funding sources and NIH DoD funding is not something that anyone could overlook unintentionally. Its a shame for such and accomplished scientist.
Without hearing his side, I am skeptical. It might be he didn't disclose because he knew that he'd be penalized for taking money from his home country. I don't know, but my skepticism when it comes to "national security" and nations they want us to think of as the enemy requires an extremely high bar.
edit: sorry got the scientist's nationality wrong.
edit: sorry got the scientist's nationality wrong.
> It might be he didn't disclose because he knew that he'd be penalized for taking money from his home country.
?
“Charles M. Lieber (born 1959) is an American chemist and pioneer in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology.”
?
“Charles M. Lieber (born 1959) is an American chemist and pioneer in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology.”
Even if you got his nationality correct, it'd be an absolutely absurd defense to not disclose because he knew he'd be penalized.
> It might be he didn't disclose because he knew that he'd be penalized
That is called fraud. That's not an excuse, and is in fact a reason for him to continue to be in trouble.
That is called fraud. That's not an excuse, and is in fact a reason for him to continue to be in trouble.
Could you imagine? "I decided not to disclose my tax evasion because I knew I'd be punished. I'm innocent!"
Accepting hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars and then lying to your university, the DoD, and NIH about it has nothing to do with "free scientific exchange".
Wait, are you trying to cast the guy who got paid millions of dollars to assist a foreign government as "one of the little guys"?
[deleted]
I wish things were as simple as this, however scientists' desire to share and collaborate stands directly at odds with state actors desire to access the technology differentiators. Would be nice to live in a world where these technologies weren't deployed against other humans (on all sides) but that is not the reality we live in.
Meanwhile:
>paid up to $50,000 a month, in addition to $150,000 per year
Seems pretty straightforward.
He must be a smart guy, I wonder how he thought he would get away with it?
Even if he could hide the money run of the mill espionage could find it.
He was supposed to do research at Wuhan University and even file for parents for and sort of promote that school. Hard to imagine nobody would notice that.
I wonder if he kept taking the money after he told investigators that he wasn't a part of the program? He had to suspect they were on to him?