"In June, the NIH said that 189 researchers may have violated grant or institutional rules regarding research integrity, with 93% having support from China."
> Lieber stated that "he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program", adding that "he 'wasn't sure' how China categorized him." The DOJ believes that Lieber's statement was false, because an intercepted email dated June 27, 2012, from Wuhan University of Technology ("WUT") included a contract for Lieber to sign.
I wonder what other evidence they have here, eg him actually receiving funds from them ... if a Chinese university sends you a recruiting email and it goes to your spam folder, and then you say you have no affiliation with them, can you be indicted for that based on an "intercepted email"? One would hope not!
ideophobia 1376 days ago [-]
According to the DOJ press release from January, "under the terms of Lieber’s three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT paid Lieber $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1,000,000 Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT." [1]
I suspect they had evidence to indicate he was paid, but couldn't produce specific financial records to prove it without a doubt. In cases like this, the FBI typically goes for the jugular by pursuing espionage charges. This can be difficult because it often requires concrete evidence of financial gain from the foreign entity explicitly for the information provided or actions taken. The mere appearance of financial gain is not enough, they'd want to see the literal check stubs and account statements.
They would prosecute these cases regardless of people's opinions on China. They are releasing data on those prosecutions, which is hard to criticize as scare tactics.
They are mostly asking for more money because the reporting has increased (See end of article).
Also:
"In June, the NIH said that 189 researchers may have violated grant or institutional rules regarding research integrity, with 93% having support from China."
LatteLazy 1376 days ago [-]
It just doesn't make sense to me otherwise, what am I missing?
99.9% of scientists didn't make a mistake. The remaining 12 might have made honest mistakes. That's the smallest problem we've ever had isn't it? Do 99.9% of people file their taxes perfectly or 99% of government employees get their expenses exactly correct? I doubt it. But somehow the FBI, the Inspector General, the NSF and Nature are all investigating and reporting publically. Why bother?
I'm cynical, maybe that's why the only reason I can think of is that it plays into a "China steals our tech" narrative.
I'd love some comparison figures for the 93% figure. What percentage of NSF grant holders got funding from China? What percentage of international funding for science comes from China (I bet that's a big number)?
What's the actual driver here? I very much doubt its fraud or espionage prevention because there doesn't seem to be any to prevent...
ethanbond 1376 days ago [-]
> There doesn't seem to be any to prevent
I think that's the critical difference between your perspective and the perspective of people who are worried about it. China does engage in espionage, as does every other state. Every state also has tries to defend themselves from espionage, and they especially don't want to fund espionage by what is quickly becoming a near-peer adversary.
They're bothering because they think it's a problem. You don't, but you're probably also not the US intelligence apparatus whose job it is to think about this.
I'm sure if these are legitimate paperwork errors, people aren't going to be getting into serious trouble. However, security lapses and intrusions often manifest and are most detectable as, you guessed it, paperwork errors.
DarthGhandi 1376 days ago [-]
Do you think nation-state espionage is healthy for a global ever-more-connected world?
Especially when it's not anything in the slightest to do with protecting lives and purely economic?
ethanbond 1376 days ago [-]
I’m not sure that dichotomy is as clear as you’re portraying it to be.
The US has been able to, for example, rebuild Europe and Japan as liberal democracies because of its economic and industrial dominance post-WW2. To think that Chinese economic dominance would not have meaningful effects for e.g. ethnic or religious minorities throughout the world is, in my view, ignoring the most fundamental forms of interconnectedness.
jvanderbot 1376 days ago [-]
What doesn't make sense? Reporting misappropriated funds and unreported conflict of interest? That's just plain transparency. If you dislike the fact that many of the cases involved China, that's not a reporting problem.
ideophobia 1376 days ago [-]
I think you're cherry picking here. There were:
16-20 cases handled by the NSF IG's office "regarding the disclosure of foreign ties" since 2018. "They were considered rule violations, but not criminal activity."
Separately, an undisclosed number of criminal cases were referred to the FBI.
Additionally, in the past two months, "seven universities have also contacted the NSF directly with information on faculty who may have violated rules." This represents another number of undisclosed potential cases. All this comes from "the agency’s first chief of research security strategy and policy," who started the job in March. So this clearly a new problem they're still working to fully grasp.
The NIH, which is a separate entity, stated they'd learned of "150 cases in the past 12 months,” according to their head of extramural research. The NIH has been conducting "an ongoing probe that has swept up 399 scientists since NIH received the first allegation in June 2016." [1]
That 93% mentioned in the original article includes 189 scientists investigated by the NIH, at least 54 of whom have been fired or resigned. The 189 scientists represent "285 active grants" totaling "$164 million." It was also reported that "cases involving the alleged theft of intellectual property or economic espionage, he says, are referred to either the inspector general for NIH’s parent body, the Department of Health and Human Services, or to the Department of Justice (DOJ)." So those cases are likely not included in these stats. Additionally, "Of the 189 scientists flagged in its letters to institutions, 133 of them (70%) failed to disclose a grant from a foreign entity, and 102 failed to disclose their participation in a foreign talent recruitment program, such as China’s Thousand Talents Program. "[2]
It also seems like you're discounting the value, purpose, nature, and impact of the research at play within these incidents, much of which is likely considered critical to the U.S. government. Murder is probably the least likely form of crime to occur where you live, but that doesn't make it a trivial issue. The driver across all of this is the continued perceived power of the US government in its technological supremacy in science and defense. China is fast on our heels, and any opportunity they have to "leap frog" research and development, as was seen with the J-31 Fighter Jet made by China [3], gives a perceived "frenemy" a significant edge that U.S leadership would consider a significant and detrimental risk to American power, politics, and foreign policy.
"In June, the NIH said that 189 researchers may have violated grant or institutional rules regarding research integrity, with 93% having support from China."
Wow.
https://nsf.gov/news/special_reports/jasonsecurity/NSF_respo...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_M._Lieber#Federal_arre...
I wonder what other evidence they have here, eg him actually receiving funds from them ... if a Chinese university sends you a recruiting email and it goes to your spam folder, and then you say you have no affiliation with them, can you be indicted for that based on an "intercepted email"? One would hope not!
I suspect they had evidence to indicate he was paid, but couldn't produce specific financial records to prove it without a doubt. In cases like this, the FBI typically goes for the jugular by pursuing espionage charges. This can be difficult because it often requires concrete evidence of financial gain from the foreign entity explicitly for the information provided or actions taken. The mere appearance of financial gain is not enough, they'd want to see the literal check stubs and account statements.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-...
I'm all for action on China, but this is Reds Under The Bed for the 2020s IMHO.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation
They are mostly asking for more money because the reporting has increased (See end of article).
Also: "In June, the NIH said that 189 researchers may have violated grant or institutional rules regarding research integrity, with 93% having support from China."
99.9% of scientists didn't make a mistake. The remaining 12 might have made honest mistakes. That's the smallest problem we've ever had isn't it? Do 99.9% of people file their taxes perfectly or 99% of government employees get their expenses exactly correct? I doubt it. But somehow the FBI, the Inspector General, the NSF and Nature are all investigating and reporting publically. Why bother?
I'm cynical, maybe that's why the only reason I can think of is that it plays into a "China steals our tech" narrative.
I'd love some comparison figures for the 93% figure. What percentage of NSF grant holders got funding from China? What percentage of international funding for science comes from China (I bet that's a big number)?
What's the actual driver here? I very much doubt its fraud or espionage prevention because there doesn't seem to be any to prevent...
I think that's the critical difference between your perspective and the perspective of people who are worried about it. China does engage in espionage, as does every other state. Every state also has tries to defend themselves from espionage, and they especially don't want to fund espionage by what is quickly becoming a near-peer adversary.
They're bothering because they think it's a problem. You don't, but you're probably also not the US intelligence apparatus whose job it is to think about this.
I'm sure if these are legitimate paperwork errors, people aren't going to be getting into serious trouble. However, security lapses and intrusions often manifest and are most detectable as, you guessed it, paperwork errors.
Especially when it's not anything in the slightest to do with protecting lives and purely economic?
The US has been able to, for example, rebuild Europe and Japan as liberal democracies because of its economic and industrial dominance post-WW2. To think that Chinese economic dominance would not have meaningful effects for e.g. ethnic or religious minorities throughout the world is, in my view, ignoring the most fundamental forms of interconnectedness.
16-20 cases handled by the NSF IG's office "regarding the disclosure of foreign ties" since 2018. "They were considered rule violations, but not criminal activity."
Separately, an undisclosed number of criminal cases were referred to the FBI.
Additionally, in the past two months, "seven universities have also contacted the NSF directly with information on faculty who may have violated rules." This represents another number of undisclosed potential cases. All this comes from "the agency’s first chief of research security strategy and policy," who started the job in March. So this clearly a new problem they're still working to fully grasp.
The NIH, which is a separate entity, stated they'd learned of "150 cases in the past 12 months,” according to their head of extramural research. The NIH has been conducting "an ongoing probe that has swept up 399 scientists since NIH received the first allegation in June 2016." [1]
That 93% mentioned in the original article includes 189 scientists investigated by the NIH, at least 54 of whom have been fired or resigned. The 189 scientists represent "285 active grants" totaling "$164 million." It was also reported that "cases involving the alleged theft of intellectual property or economic espionage, he says, are referred to either the inspector general for NIH’s parent body, the Department of Health and Human Services, or to the Department of Justice (DOJ)." So those cases are likely not included in these stats. Additionally, "Of the 189 scientists flagged in its letters to institutions, 133 of them (70%) failed to disclose a grant from a foreign entity, and 102 failed to disclose their participation in a foreign talent recruitment program, such as China’s Thousand Talents Program. "[2]
It also seems like you're discounting the value, purpose, nature, and impact of the research at play within these incidents, much of which is likely considered critical to the U.S. government. Murder is probably the least likely form of crime to occur where you live, but that doesn't make it a trivial issue. The driver across all of this is the continued perceived power of the US government in its technological supremacy in science and defense. China is fast on our heels, and any opportunity they have to "leap frog" research and development, as was seen with the J-31 Fighter Jet made by China [3], gives a perceived "frenemy" a significant edge that U.S leadership would consider a significant and detrimental risk to American power, politics, and foreign policy.
[1] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/has-it-peaked-i-don-...
[2] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/fifty-four-scientist...
[3] https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-fighter-hacking/theft-of...