Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties(sciencemag.org)
sciencemag.org
Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/exclusive-major-us-cancer-center-ousts-asian-researchers-after-nih-flags-their-foreign
125 comments
When worked as technical support we had some large banks as customers who insisted everyone who worked their cases be US citizens. We worked with some semi sensitive technical data, but nothing directly banking related. A few banks required drug and credit checks (the credit checks were just dumb).
Amusingly they were happy to hire on connected people in less friendly nations when operating overseas.
I think the citizen thing was reasonable, credit check maybe not.
Amusingly they were happy to hire on connected people in less friendly nations when operating overseas.
I think the citizen thing was reasonable, credit check maybe not.
> credit checks (the credit checks were just dumb).
Credit checks are extremely smart. People who are financially vulnerable are high risk.
Credit checks are extremely smart. People who are financially vulnerable are high risk.
This is something people in security sensitive fields like to claim, but the fact is narcissism drives acts of betrayal much more often than desperation for cash. The thrill of "getting away with something" or having the sense of being smarter than peers and overseers has certainly caused much more betrayal than something as mundane as money.
Any data to backup that claim?
What you are saying maybe true for very high profile breaches - but for most firms, the "has a high degree of debt to income ratio" is a decent signal to decide if that person may have reasons to be vulnerable to bribery.
What you are saying maybe true for very high profile breaches - but for most firms, the "has a high degree of debt to income ratio" is a decent signal to decide if that person may have reasons to be vulnerable to bribery.
I wonder how accurate that is. There's plenty of evidence of folks who are desperate doing desperate things... but also plenty of people doing bad things simply for "more" money.
As far as financal status goes I'm not sure how good an indicator this is, for say a support role where you may or may not interact with a bank.
As far as financal status goes I'm not sure how good an indicator this is, for say a support role where you may or may not interact with a bank.
Take the case of this American politician:
https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/wsj-kushn...
The guy's family has a massive debt. He was denied security clearance because that debt makes him a big risk. His party somehow push it through (politicians, sigh) and now he has been bailed out by the Saudi regime (iirc he's foreign secretary to Saudi Arabia or something - the top politician responsible for that country).
In potentially sensitive or powerful positions it's only prudent to look at how susceptible someone is to being influenced. The news is full of stories of people committing fraud to pay for gambling debts. Treason isn't exactly far off of that..
https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/wsj-kushn...
The guy's family has a massive debt. He was denied security clearance because that debt makes him a big risk. His party somehow push it through (politicians, sigh) and now he has been bailed out by the Saudi regime (iirc he's foreign secretary to Saudi Arabia or something - the top politician responsible for that country).
In potentially sensitive or powerful positions it's only prudent to look at how susceptible someone is to being influenced. The news is full of stories of people committing fraud to pay for gambling debts. Treason isn't exactly far off of that..
Why are we acting like the two are mutually exclusive? There are two vulnerability groups here:
1) People with financial difficulties who would be more prone to take small amounts on a regular basis to "round out" their income difficulties. 2) People who, even though financially secure or well off, if given the opportunity for a large score, would be tempted to take it.
There are different approaches for dealing with both, with some overlap. Limiting the possibility for any fraud by limiting access, requiring multiple approvals, etc. helps negate both groups' potential for fraud. Credit checks help to eliminate only the first group's potential.
1) People with financial difficulties who would be more prone to take small amounts on a regular basis to "round out" their income difficulties. 2) People who, even though financially secure or well off, if given the opportunity for a large score, would be tempted to take it.
There are different approaches for dealing with both, with some overlap. Limiting the possibility for any fraud by limiting access, requiring multiple approvals, etc. helps negate both groups' potential for fraud. Credit checks help to eliminate only the first group's potential.
A credit check is basically relevant to any job. If you can't be trusted to pay back your loans on time as promised how can you be trusted to do your job as promised?
That sounds like it would produce pretty vicious cycle.
Bad credit, can't get job... can't get job, can't improve credit...
Bad credit, can't get job... can't get job, can't improve credit...
The largest single source of bankruptcy in the US is medical debt. So you are essentially equating having a family member need serious medical care with mendacity, laziness, and general moral failure. Is that really something we want to do?
No, it isn't. While a credit check can show someone acting badly, it can also show mistakes, youth, and simple bad luck.
(they used to give away credit cards to college students working part time).
It might also show that someone has a medical condition that wound up expensive, which can happen despite medical insurance.
Many of these things do not mean that you'll not do your job as promised nor that you will steal money from the company.
(they used to give away credit cards to college students working part time).
It might also show that someone has a medical condition that wound up expensive, which can happen despite medical insurance.
Many of these things do not mean that you'll not do your job as promised nor that you will steal money from the company.
And not being born into a wealthy family.
This would be hard to argue against if credit scores were accurate. They're not exactly pseudoscience, but they're still far from perfect.
When I was buying my house, I was building up and paying off ~$500 across 4 credit cards (one for Home Depot, one for Uber, etc.) I paid them down to $0 every month.
I'd consider that behavior to be financially smart. I got discounts of 5% on all those purchases because of the perks of the cards.
I was shocked by the score the bank had given me, since I do monitor my credit. They told me I had to stop using all those cards. I did, and my score went up 100 points instantly.
When I was buying my house, I was building up and paying off ~$500 across 4 credit cards (one for Home Depot, one for Uber, etc.) I paid them down to $0 every month.
I'd consider that behavior to be financially smart. I got discounts of 5% on all those purchases because of the perks of the cards.
I was shocked by the score the bank had given me, since I do monitor my credit. They told me I had to stop using all those cards. I did, and my score went up 100 points instantly.
You didn't mention what that utilization rate was, but it makes perfect sense to me. Using those cards so much gave the impression that you "needed" the credit line, even if you paid it off by the end of the month.
If you have a $50k limit and spend $2k/month, paying off in full, it doesn't really impact your score much at all. If you have $1k limit and spend $500/month it's a big risk.
You can usually make additional payments during the cycle so it doesn't impact your utilization. Whenever I make a larger purchase I just login and pay it off in full right away so it doesn't ding me.
If you have a $50k limit and spend $2k/month, paying off in full, it doesn't really impact your score much at all. If you have $1k limit and spend $500/month it's a big risk.
You can usually make additional payments during the cycle so it doesn't impact your utilization. Whenever I make a larger purchase I just login and pay it off in full right away so it doesn't ding me.
Utilization rate is 0 if you pay off every month..
That’s not accurate, you can read more here:
https://www.thebalance.com/understanding-credit-utilization-...
The utilization rate was ~1%.
We're talking powerful and/or sensitive positions here. Well paid IT for banks, political roles, management/directorial roles in industry. A very small percentage of overall jobs.
The people mentioned in the article are Americans. Also discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and national origin is illegal: https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/discrimination/ethnicdisc
But if other "Americans" (maybe even with dual citizenship) of the same ethnicity and background have a propensity to spy on behalf of their country of origin, then it seems reasonable to be extra careful with such individuals.
Still, the discrimination is illegal and violates human rights (also, modern societies do not have a notion of collective responsibility).
[deleted]
hhahah, I remember a meeting with Roche (swiss drug company) where they said their SAP admins had to be swiss citizens. Not German, Not French and definitely not Italian was how he said it.
Also, +20 years ago, in the big Swiss banks, you could go up in the (top) management almost only if you were an officer in the army. Times have changed. hehe
[deleted]
Everyone at my firm must be a United States citizen.
pishpash(1)
It is racist to assume that someone’s place of birth determines their allegiances.
But is it true? Because speaking as someone living abroad, it's certainly true for me.
No it's not. Some form of prejudice, certainly, but not racism.
I really don't think racist is the term to describe this discrimiation, since you could hardly say Swiss and French are from a different race.
edit: clarification
edit: clarification
It was a matter of nationality (family bounds, schools you attended, school/univeristy friends, friends, etc), not race. A Swiss being black could have been hired.
Switzerland is a small village, so if you break the law, everybody will know it. So locals tend to respect the law (social pressure).
Today a company would be bbqed in the news paper for such a heavy policy.
Switzerland is a small village, so if you break the law, everybody will know it. So locals tend to respect the law (social pressure).
Today a company would be bbqed in the news paper for such a heavy policy.
By your logic, people from all nations should be able to get top secret government security clearances. Let me know how that works out.
No. By his logic "birth place" shouldn't be the determining factor. FYI, birth place does not determine nationality.
While that's true, personally I'm ok with birth place being a restriction for some things e.g. in order to run for President in the US, one needs to be born in the US, not merely a citizen. Not sure how it is in other Western countries.
I don’t think that’s true - John McCain was born in Panama. The rule is they have to be a citizen at birth.
Naturalized citizens are often more trustworthy than citizens by birth.
The problem with this logic is that when applied, it can absolutely be racist.
For example, in your example what happens to those born in say, Puerto Rico? Are they barred from running for president because they weren't born in the US?
For example, in your example what happens to those born in say, Puerto Rico? Are they barred from running for president because they weren't born in the US?
[deleted]
>The new developments are linked to a sweeping effort launched last year by NIH to address growing U.S. government fears that foreign nations, particularly China, are taking unfair advantage of federally funded research.
Instead we let big pharma do it and charge a massive markup to fund their yachts eh?
Instead we let big pharma do it and charge a massive markup to fund their yachts eh?
[deleted]
Well considering this is the same country who interned 110,000 Americans of Japanese descent all due to hysteria.
I do think that was a huge over-reaction, particularly in retrospect, but you can't chalk it up entirely to hysteria considering it happened in the aftermath of the Niihau incident.
> but you can't chalk it up entirely to hysteria considering it happened in the aftermath of the Niihau incident.
You're right it wasn't hysteria, it was literal robbery. The white farmers were literally waiting to steal everything the Japanese left behind in California.
You're right it wasn't hysteria, it was literal robbery. The white farmers were literally waiting to steal everything the Japanese left behind in California.
Oh yes, I'm aware. And in Seattle when Japanese-Americans were interned, many African-Americans moved into the property left behind, brought to Seattle by the huge surplus of jobs working for Boeing. Today there are Japanese-Americans who object to that neighborhood being called the "International District" because they feel that perpetuates the wrong done to their community.
Incidentally, Boeing was forbidden by the federal government from discriminating against those African-American workers, as they might well have in an earlier era. The Fair Employment Practice Committee which forbade discrimination against these African-American workers was created to implement FDR's Executive Order 8802. That executive order was motivated in no small part by FDR observing American defense companies discriminating against German-Americans and Italian-Americans, which he considered to be a threat to the war effort. This executive order was one of the first times the federal government ever took any action against racial or ethnic discrimination in the workplace.
Strangely the Wikipedia page for the FEPC suggests it was motivated to help "African-Americans and other minorities", while the Wikipedia page for Executive Order 8802 emphasizes that it was discrimination of German-Americans and Italian-Americans which motivated FDR. (I'm more inclined to believe the later, but either way it certainly had the effect of helping the African-American community find work in the defense industry.)
Incidentally, Boeing was forbidden by the federal government from discriminating against those African-American workers, as they might well have in an earlier era. The Fair Employment Practice Committee which forbade discrimination against these African-American workers was created to implement FDR's Executive Order 8802. That executive order was motivated in no small part by FDR observing American defense companies discriminating against German-Americans and Italian-Americans, which he considered to be a threat to the war effort. This executive order was one of the first times the federal government ever took any action against racial or ethnic discrimination in the workplace.
Strangely the Wikipedia page for the FEPC suggests it was motivated to help "African-Americans and other minorities", while the Wikipedia page for Executive Order 8802 emphasizes that it was discrimination of German-Americans and Italian-Americans which motivated FDR. (I'm more inclined to believe the later, but either way it certainly had the effect of helping the African-American community find work in the defense industry.)
And did we put any members of the German American Bund into internment camps, or would it just have been less palatable to intern people with the same skin color?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund
I don't have a list of names to cross-reference, but I'd guess more than a few were. Their leader was stripped of his citizenship and kicked out of the country. A blanket internment of German-Americas was considered but deemed impractical:
>"Shortly after the Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor, some 1,260 German nationals were detained and arrested, as the government had been watching them.[26] Of the 254 persons not of Japanese ancestry evicted from coastal areas, the majority were ethnic German.[27] During WWII, German nationals and German Americans in the US were detained and/or evicted from coastal areas on an individual basis. Although the War Department (now the Department of Defense) considered mass expulsion of ethnic Germans and ethnic Italians from the East or West coast areas for reasons of military security, it did not follow through with this. The numbers of people involved would have been overwhelming to manage.[28]"
> "In the 1940 US census, some 1,237,000 persons identified as being of German birth; 5 million persons had both parents born in Germany; and 6 million persons had at least one parent born in Germany.[25] German immigrants had not been prohibited from becoming naturalized United States citizens and many did so. The large number of German Americans of recent connection to Germany, and their resulting political and economical influence, have been considered the reason they were spared large-scale relocation and internment. "
Note also that in Hawaii, out of 150,000 Japanese-Americans, less than 2,000 were interned. In Hawaii Japanese-Americans were too numerous to mass-intern, as German-Americans were too numerous to mass-intern across America. However across the west-coast of mainland America, where the relative size of their population was much smaller, mass-interment of Japanese-Americas was considered practical and therefore enacted.
Another factor to consider is that America had already had a war with Germany, not many years before, so the loyalties of most German-Americans had already past muster in the eyes of many. Japan was considered a new unknown quantity. During WWI, anti-German sentiment across America was much stronger than it was during the subsequent war:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-German_sentiment#United_S...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language_in_the_United_...
>"Shortly after the Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor, some 1,260 German nationals were detained and arrested, as the government had been watching them.[26] Of the 254 persons not of Japanese ancestry evicted from coastal areas, the majority were ethnic German.[27] During WWII, German nationals and German Americans in the US were detained and/or evicted from coastal areas on an individual basis. Although the War Department (now the Department of Defense) considered mass expulsion of ethnic Germans and ethnic Italians from the East or West coast areas for reasons of military security, it did not follow through with this. The numbers of people involved would have been overwhelming to manage.[28]"
> "In the 1940 US census, some 1,237,000 persons identified as being of German birth; 5 million persons had both parents born in Germany; and 6 million persons had at least one parent born in Germany.[25] German immigrants had not been prohibited from becoming naturalized United States citizens and many did so. The large number of German Americans of recent connection to Germany, and their resulting political and economical influence, have been considered the reason they were spared large-scale relocation and internment. "
Note also that in Hawaii, out of 150,000 Japanese-Americans, less than 2,000 were interned. In Hawaii Japanese-Americans were too numerous to mass-intern, as German-Americans were too numerous to mass-intern across America. However across the west-coast of mainland America, where the relative size of their population was much smaller, mass-interment of Japanese-Americas was considered practical and therefore enacted.
Another factor to consider is that America had already had a war with Germany, not many years before, so the loyalties of most German-Americans had already past muster in the eyes of many. Japan was considered a new unknown quantity. During WWI, anti-German sentiment across America was much stronger than it was during the subsequent war:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-German_sentiment#United_S...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language_in_the_United_...
Stop acting like something that happened nearly 80 years ago is relevant today. Did we go crazy and lock up every Muslim after 9-11? That was a different time, a great deal of progress has been made since then. Sometimes I think too much progress as we are unwilling to be tough against those who seek to do us harm.
The problem is that the same people who sold the 9/11 surveillance state were (and still are) making the argument that Japanese-American interment was justified, and would be justified again in the same circumstances. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Defense_of_Internment
There was also some rhetoric explicitly referencing interment (in a positive way) during the 2016 presidential campaign.
And to remind, the Korematsu decision - which, essentially, made it all legal - wasn't overturned until last year, either.
So it's not exactly ancient history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Defense_of_Internment
There was also some rhetoric explicitly referencing interment (in a positive way) during the 2016 presidential campaign.
And to remind, the Korematsu decision - which, essentially, made it all legal - wasn't overturned until last year, either.
So it's not exactly ancient history.
Yea it's not like it had any long last effects such as the lost of valuable property and wealth that was stolen after they were forced from their homes or the lost of opportunity due to stolen years.
No that doesn't matter anymore even though the people that lived through it are still alive.
No that doesn't matter despite people in politics literally raising the specter of doing it again and in some cases, directly suggesting and defending it as a future potential action.
We're totally reaching when we bring it again.
No that doesn't matter anymore even though the people that lived through it are still alive.
No that doesn't matter despite people in politics literally raising the specter of doing it again and in some cases, directly suggesting and defending it as a future potential action.
We're totally reaching when we bring it again.
> Sometimes I think too much progress as we are unwilling to be tough against those who seek to do us harm.
We invaded a whole country (Afghanistan), sent many to places like Guantanamo Bay, and bombed them throughout Africa and the Middle East. What more do you want?
We invaded a whole country (Afghanistan), sent many to places like Guantanamo Bay, and bombed them throughout Africa and the Middle East. What more do you want?
I wonder why the headline says 'Asian' instead of saying Chinese, since all three researchers were Chinese with ties to China.
As an ethic Indian, I'm kinda offended when all Asians are just lumped together as I believe it promotes general racism and bias against anyone from that continent.
As an ethic Indian, I'm kinda offended when all Asians are just lumped together as I believe it promotes general racism and bias against anyone from that continent.
Funny you say that because in the US, Indians are not considered Asians in practice even though of course South Asia is, well in Asia. I have seen many people argue that Asians only mean East Asians and does not include South Asians. However, the official census lumps all Asians together.
As an American, when I hear Asian I think Chinese/Japanese/Korean.
Despite the fact that I know India is in Asia, I don’t think of people from India as Asians.
Incidentally, Israel is also in Asia, but I don’t consider Israelis to be Asian either.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-continent-is-israel...
Despite the fact that I know India is in Asia, I don’t think of people from India as Asians.
Incidentally, Israel is also in Asia, but I don’t consider Israelis to be Asian either.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-continent-is-israel...
I think also the divide between Europe and Asia to be silly since generally continent is defined as: "any of the world's main continuous expanses of land" - and I don't see any dividing body of water between Europe and Asia... What am I missing?
> What am I missing?
The Turkish Straits. Are you referring to the more northern border? I assumed it was the Ural Mountains, but it’s more complicated than that and has an interesting history. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundaries_between_the_conti...
The Turkish Straits. Are you referring to the more northern border? I assumed it was the Ural Mountains, but it’s more complicated than that and has an interesting history. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundaries_between_the_conti...
I believe you are spreading misinformation here.
The Census Bureau determines ethnicity and race within America for legal purposes (including employment)
Asians are people from 'the far east' 'southeast asia' and 'india'
https://www.census.gov/mso/www/training/pdf/race-ethnicity-o...
BY NO MEANS am I defending this, I believe much of our race 'stuff' is indefensibly stupid and unscientific from biological, historical, and sociological perspectives, and the American idea of "Asian" is one of the worst concepts of all.
The Census Bureau determines ethnicity and race within America for legal purposes (including employment)
Asians are people from 'the far east' 'southeast asia' and 'india'
https://www.census.gov/mso/www/training/pdf/race-ethnicity-o...
BY NO MEANS am I defending this, I believe much of our race 'stuff' is indefensibly stupid and unscientific from biological, historical, and sociological perspectives, and the American idea of "Asian" is one of the worst concepts of all.
It's not misinformation. Colloquially when people in the US say "asian" they are only rarely referring to Indians or Pakistanis or Bangladeshis. They are almost always referring to Chinese or Japanese or Koreans.
The census may use different groupings.
The census may use different groupings.
In Germany 'Asians' and 'Indians' are two distinct groups. When we talk about 'Asians' we usually mean Japan/China/Korea/Thailand but never Indians (or even Pakistani).
My theory is that this comes from restaurant culture. There is 'asian food', e.g. 'stuff with rice' and there is 'indian food', e.g. 'stuff with curry'.
My theory is that this comes from restaurant culture. There is 'asian food', e.g. 'stuff with rice' and there is 'indian food', e.g. 'stuff with curry'.
Genetically, most Indians are more closely related to Europeans than to East Asians. And East Asians are more closely related to Native Americans than to Indians.
E.g. https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/53636/online-phy...
E.g. https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/53636/online-phy...
This is one phylogeny. What is it built on? The problem is individual haplotypes have complex histories of their own which recombine sexually to form diverse mixtures which flow across "ethnic" groups.
Well to be honest those descriptions are vague and not helpful
SE Asia is "souther" than "South Asia" (which is still in the northern hemisphere)
Not specifying the country really sounds like a diversion most of the time (and it's rare that "Asian" could be an useful generalization).
SE Asia is "souther" than "South Asia" (which is still in the northern hemisphere)
Not specifying the country really sounds like a diversion most of the time (and it's rare that "Asian" could be an useful generalization).
Typically if there is some distinction of asian in US surveys I've encountered, the common categorization is southeast asian vs asian/pacific islander. Which is just as much of a head scratcher of groupings.
Asian in the US includes S. Asia, I think, popularly.
How are Indians not considered “Asians in practice” when they are considered as such by the Census, the authoritative organization that sets the categorization standard?
Because laypeople don't think of those things. The divide in the way people look, the environment of their countries, how they sound, and what they believe, is split in Asia by the Himalayas. Obviously there are many differences between the countries but it's easy to see why conceptually some might group some of them together into 2 large regions. Also Indians in America don't generally refer to themselves as Asians when speaking, so if their goal is to be perceived as Asian, they are not helping themselves.
Colloquially, in America, Asians are identified as having slanty eyes and white skin. Indians have brown skin and are therefore not colloquially referred to as Asians. Instead, they are referred to simply as "Indian".
Colloquailly in the UK it is somewhat of an opposite scenario, if people hear "Asian", they think someone from India/Pakistan/Bangladesh.
This is an oversimplification, most Americans will also be quick to categorize darker skinned Southeast Asians as Asian.
Historically most Asians in the US were from East Asia and later SEA so the label tends to evoke those groups. Lacking familiarity, it may also be harder for many Americans to easily discriminate (lol?) between East Indians and other non-white/non-Asian groups.
Still there are plenty of people that do include Indians as "Asian" in the US, it's hardly a universal standard to exclude them as a lot of comments here seem to think.
Historically most Asians in the US were from East Asia and later SEA so the label tends to evoke those groups. Lacking familiarity, it may also be harder for many Americans to easily discriminate (lol?) between East Indians and other non-white/non-Asian groups.
Still there are plenty of people that do include Indians as "Asian" in the US, it's hardly a universal standard to exclude them as a lot of comments here seem to think.
In my experience living in the U.S. at least, if someone is referring to someone of Indian origin, they call them Indian, whereas if someone is referring to someone of Korean/Japanese/Chinese origin, they'll call them Asian (unless they know their particular country of origin).
I would expand the Asian designation to include southeast Asians as well (Vietnam, Philippines, Cambodia, Thailand, etc). Though maybe that’s just a west coast thing.
Its just the view the English language has consensed on at the ground level. It's not decided intentionally.
The GP is correct. Of course officially Asia has many nations. But colloquially we use 'Asian' to refer to East Asian folks. You're talking about a country that, in many parts, refers to Native Americans as 'Indians' to this day...
For the same reason that Tomatoes not treated as fruits "in practice."
It is the 'Anglo Colonial Atlas of Races' masquerading as "geography". Middle East -- a geographic figment of colonial imagination -- is code word for 'lightly colored sand dwellers'. Asian means 'of the yellow races with strange eyes'.
It's dumb that we call the group "Asian" instead of "East Asian," but there are notable ethnic and cultural similarities that East Asian nations don't share with the rest of Asia. Ditto the Middle East.
I don't think it's automatically bigotry to refer to people this way. "Western European" and "South American" are less controversial examples.
I don't think it's automatically bigotry to refer to people this way. "Western European" and "South American" are less controversial examples.
> Cancer center officials have not named any of the five researchers. MD Anderson President Peter Pisters says all are “Asian”;
I believe because that's the official statement.
I believe because that's the official statement.
It’s a direct quote from a statement provided by the institution. Not a choice the reporter made, but they mention that they confirmed most are ethnically Chinese.
The United States Government has official racial categories for individuals, of which "Asian" is one.
Employers and academic institutions are required by law to categorize employees/researchers/students into these racial categories.
Employers and academic institutions are required by law to categorize employees/researchers/students into these racial categories.
Your mystery can be solved by reading to the third paragraph.
> Cancer center officials have not named any of the five researchers. MD Anderson President Peter Pisters says all are “Asian”; Science has confirmed that three are ethnically Chinese.
> Cancer center officials have not named any of the five researchers. MD Anderson President Peter Pisters says all are “Asian”; Science has confirmed that three are ethnically Chinese.
MD Anderson President Peter Pisters says all [five] are “Asian”; Science has confirmed that three are ethnically Chinese.
Totally agree.
As it is, Indian diversity is already lumped together into one nation. No one says European cuisine, European language, European culture etc when referring to something specific.
As a person from India, who lived more than a decade in the USA, I took quite some time to realize the following:
- We are not Asians even though India is in Asia. Asians are those who have the "oriental facial features".
- We are not Indians, because generally native Americans are referred to as Indians, and I realized only later that if I mention "native Americans" when someone refers to them as Indians, can be a little incorrect (politically) based on who says that.
- We are all "South Asians" when a terror attack occurs in developed countries (especially European counties).
- When there's something specifically negative pointed out about India, then it's clearly "Indians" and "India" (this point is limited to celebs and US/Eu media, not the general population that I have come across).
people if USA are used to be called Americans and not "USAians". I guess it's the same attitude towards other countries that leads to such usage of terms.
As it is, Indian diversity is already lumped together into one nation. No one says European cuisine, European language, European culture etc when referring to something specific.
As a person from India, who lived more than a decade in the USA, I took quite some time to realize the following:
- We are not Asians even though India is in Asia. Asians are those who have the "oriental facial features".
- We are not Indians, because generally native Americans are referred to as Indians, and I realized only later that if I mention "native Americans" when someone refers to them as Indians, can be a little incorrect (politically) based on who says that.
- We are all "South Asians" when a terror attack occurs in developed countries (especially European counties).
- When there's something specifically negative pointed out about India, then it's clearly "Indians" and "India" (this point is limited to celebs and US/Eu media, not the general population that I have come across).
people if USA are used to be called Americans and not "USAians". I guess it's the same attitude towards other countries that leads to such usage of terms.
In the US, Asian = people from eastern Asia.
In the UK, Asian = people from southern Asia.
Sure, but even if we continue to abide by this inconsistent terminology, "eastern Asia" is not the same thing as China, so the OP's point still seems relevant.
I'm not endorsing the use of the terminology, nor do I use it, but that has been my experience with others who use it in the US and UK. I know the US Census lumps Indians and Chinese together in one as Asian, but colloquially, I never hear anyone in the US refer to Indians as Asians.
Speaking as someone from the UK, when I say "Asian" I mean East Asian, and when I mean someone from South Asia, I name the specific nationality.
For example, I generally wouldn't refer to someone from India as "Asian".
For example, I generally wouldn't refer to someone from India as "Asian".
FWIW, all the UK coverage of the grooming gang scandals refers to the perpetrators as Asian (they are mostly South Asian, and definitely not East Asian).
[deleted]
[deleted]
So you're fine as long as racism is only directed towards races other than your own?
Chinese is a nationality or citizenship status. If the focus were reporting han chinese then it would enter the territory of racism.
Let's go with the term bigotry in response to this throw-away objection.
it obviously depends on the context, but China is homogeneous enough that 'chinese' is often used to mean more than just nationality
Considering China to be a homogeneous entity in any dimension is borne of ignorance. Linguistically, the four largest cities in China (Guangzhou, Shanghai, Chongqing, Beijing) speak "dialects" that range from barely mutually intelligible to not at all. Politically, the region has had a long history of provinces disregarding central rule, rivalry between major power centers, etc. Cultural boundaries have been somewhat muddied in the modern era, but one should not assume that the united front that the CCP presents to the outside world is reflective of internal unity.
Sure, the Han make up 90%+ of the population (and in that sense you could call China homogeneous), but I struggle to say that Han == Han when it comes to the overwhelming diversity of the country.
Sure, the Han make up 90%+ of the population (and in that sense you could call China homogeneous), but I struggle to say that Han == Han when it comes to the overwhelming diversity of the country.
because india is not in asia, it's in india
Weird jokes aside, I cannot not think asia = china,japan,tibet,koreas,vietnam,laos,thailand ..
In my brain, the rest is ~elsewhere
Weird jokes aside, I cannot not think asia = china,japan,tibet,koreas,vietnam,laos,thailand ..
In my brain, the rest is ~elsewhere
[deleted]
Yes, “Asian” as used by most Westerners† is the current socially-palatable “Oriental” or “Mongoloid”, but it’s no less lazy, ignorant, annoying and even racist.
Imagine calling Canadians and Mexicans “American” because of the continent.
† If you’re annoyed by being lumped under “Westerner” you might be able to relate.
Imagine calling Canadians and Mexicans “American” because of the continent.
† If you’re annoyed by being lumped under “Westerner” you might be able to relate.
> Imagine calling Canadians and Mexicans “American” because of the continent.
I've seen "North American" used like that pretty often, actually.
> If you’re annoyed by being lumped under “Westerner” you might be able to relate.
I'm not. Should I be? It makes sense.
I agree that "Asian" doesn't make sense in the way the West tends to use it. "East Asian" is somewhat better, though still not 100% geographically accurate. But then "Westerner" isn't really accurate either; it's just the best commonly-accepted term for a useful concept.
I've seen "North American" used like that pretty often, actually.
> If you’re annoyed by being lumped under “Westerner” you might be able to relate.
I'm not. Should I be? It makes sense.
I agree that "Asian" doesn't make sense in the way the West tends to use it. "East Asian" is somewhat better, though still not 100% geographically accurate. But then "Westerner" isn't really accurate either; it's just the best commonly-accepted term for a useful concept.
Is your position really that it’s unacceptable to refer to some subset of people who trace their recent ancestry to Asia as Asians? Do you think it’s unacceptable to refer to people of recent European ancestry as Europeans?
What if I preferentially self-identify as "Westerner"?
I think it is an Americansim, the British do not generally use "Asian" with that specific connotation.
crowdpleaser(3)
Why not look into other ethinic's ties with foreign nations that taking advantage of US funded research? Probably because they are not considered to be threats, and sharing common good research results is not necessarily a bad thing. (Military tech is different story.) The fact is US is considering China as a threat under Trump's throne, so researchers with Chinese heritage is under much higher scrutiny than other races is the racism happening right now. It is a much more subtle and dangerous form of Racism, reminded me War World II Japanese-Americans. What's happening in this article is just a symptom.
Specifically, white people have been stealing research and claiming it as theirs for decades. We give them Nobel prizes when they do it really well.
>Four of the five NIH letters to MD Anderson contain very specific allegations of what NIH terms “serious” rule violations. One letter, for instance, asserts that a researcher had violated peer-review confidentiality by emailing to a scientist in China an NIH grant application marked as containing “proprietary/privileged information.” A different letter alleges that a researcher had shared “detailed information on as many as 8 NIH applications” with a daughter. NIH asserts several researchers had “active and well-supported research programs in China,” or financial ties to foreign firms, that they did not disclose. Three of the letters specifically mention a researcher’s potential involvement in China’s Thousand Talents Program, an effort started in 2008 to establish ties with Chinese or Chinese American scientists working outside of China by offering funding, salary, and other research support.
This sounds like really boring stuff that the scientists may not even have known that they weren't allowed to do.
This sounds like really boring stuff that the scientists may not even have known that they weren't allowed to do.
If you are a funding peer reviewer you know you are not allowed to send grant applications to anyone unauthorized. It's not boring; a big deal is made out of this repeatedly and it is a serious lapse.
Of course this is something that is rarely punished because in most cases there's no way for the authorities to know. Too bad for these folks that they seemed to be under investigation.
Of course this is something that is rarely punished because in most cases there's no way for the authorities to know. Too bad for these folks that they seemed to be under investigation.
For a peer reviewer of a proposal to send it to anyone else is both unethical and against the basic black-letter rules. Anyone doing peer reviews of proposals will be asked to ensure confidentiality of proposals under review. (https://grants.nih.gov/policy/research_integrity/confidentia...)
The level of paranoia around proposals is much higher than, say, peer reviews for conferences or journal papers, where sometimes a paper might be given to a grad student to take a look at.
The level of paranoia around proposals is much higher than, say, peer reviews for conferences or journal papers, where sometimes a paper might be given to a grad student to take a look at.
It sounds like they have pretty clear rules that you're not allowed to do that.
Honestly still today, for some critial jobs, I do not understand companies not hiring local people (whatever nationality) with their friends and whole family (parents, cousins, etc) in the country. The cost of treason is higher (if they need to escape the country). It is not bullet proof, but it mitigates the risk.
But it looks like banks have a short memory (This guy was a sysadmin): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herv%C3%A9_Falciani