10 ms·

This article is written from the standpoint that something is being lost, IP, to foreign governments. What I don’t see it saying is that something has been lost

This article is written from the standpoint that something is being lost, IP, to foreign governments. What I don’t see it saying is that something has been lost and/or stolen. Science being funded across borders isn’t a bad thing. Collaboration leads to greater understanding and faster discoveries. The article doesn’t seem to mention any positives, only painting everything as shady back room dealings that need to be exposed. I’m curious if anyone in the science community has a more positive perspective than the one that’s being written about here? It seems to only mention China as the threat, but I see research is constantly shared with European universities. Will those also come under investigation? Basically, are the issues brought up in the article actually bad things that we want to prevent? If these new policies are carried through, will we be better off or not?

sambull 7y ago
Sounds like we don't want to sell our education or knowledge to 'specific' groups we don't like at the moment, this list will be a ever evolving and changing landscape i'm sure: "The success of the program in recruiting U.S.-trained scientists back to China has been viewed with concern from the U.S., with a June 2018 report from the National Intelligence Council declaring an underlying motivation of the program to be “to facilitate the legal and illicit transfer of US technology, intellectual property and know-how” to China." [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_Talents_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_Talents_Program
ethanbond 7y ago
Most European countries have been the US's strategic allies since at least WW2. China, meanwhile, is a strategic competitor to the United States. Why on earth would knowledge being shared with Europe have the same scrutiny applied?
- wbl 7y ago
  The knowledge gets published and shared with everyone.
  - ethanbond 7y ago
    Not all knowledge gets published. In fact, the overwhelming majority of knowledge produced by these institutions - even ones whose goals are explicitly to publish - never sees publication. This is in itself a problem that ought to be solved, but for the time being makes this argument void.
ourlordcaffeine 7y ago
>Science being funded across borders isn’t a bad thing Collaboration is the key word here. This isn't science being funded across borders, this is research being stolen, such that the work is quickly finished off in China and published before the researchers in the US do, the thief and China getting all the credit to themselves and a bunch of knowledge at no cost. The difference with the EU is that it is mutual, consensual collaboration with both sides putting in work and funding.
- capableweb 7y ago
  > this is research being stolen Well, I guess copied would be a better word, as the people who "had the research" still has it. > quickly finished off in China and published before the researchers in the US do Sounds like they are doing a better job than US researchers then? Unless of course, they do a sloppy job finishing it, but then US researchers can just take their time, do it properly and people would use their research instead. Free market of research basically, just have to make sure your research is actually better.
  - freeone3000 7y ago
    That's not how research works. The first paper published is the important one; all others are derivative, and must prove novelty or improvement anew. And even if you do, you must cite the first paper published, and that's the one with the prestige associated with the citation count, not yours, which might even be overlooked. Simply being "more robust" is unlikely to be sufficiently novel for acceptance into a journal or conference.
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    This "free market" is similar to JK Rowling asking me to proofread her new Harry Potter book that is 95% finished. I take it and "finish" the last 5% and then publish it as my own book. I honestly cannot understand this viewpoint that stealing private information is not only cool, but a good thing to do. I literally hear it only on hackernews and no where else in my life.
    - 7y ago
hourislate 7y ago
>This article is written from the standpoint that something is being lost, IP, to foreign governments. The target here is China. They alone are responsible for the largest transfer of wealth the world has ever seen (Trillions $$ in IP theft from western tax payers). There is a great book called "Future Wars-Mark Goodman" that details some of this theft of technology that the Chinese Gov and their agents have carried out not just from the US but Europe also.
- logicchains 7y ago
  Taking IP is not a "wealth transfer"; it's wealth copying. The productive capacity of the original holder of the IP/technology is not decreased by someone else also having it, although their revenue might be. This is different from if I go and steal your factory, which prevents you from producing whatever you were using the factory to produce. Intellectual property and property are qualitatively different, and many people argue that society would be better off without the former (see for instance the massive support for SciHub and movie piracy on HN).
  - mitchty 7y ago
    If someone takes unpublished work for a paper, then uses all that unpublished as of yet work and publishes it, how is that "wealth copying". Its plagiarism as well as unethical, and it is indeed taking away the productive capacity of the person doing the original work. Support for SciHub is orthogonal to this, these academic papers don't exist yet. So not even the Arxiv would make sense, its not even a preprint, its work in progress thats being co-opted and used for gain within China. If you could explain how this state of affairs, aka upending the academic publishing model entirely by undermining the entire idea and using unpublished research for your own gain in another country, that would be a constructive way of addressing the issue at hand. As the issue at hand isn't directly economic, but it will affect economics at some point as money is involved.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - viro 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

sambull 7y ago

Sounds like we don't want to sell our education or knowledge to 'specific' groups we don't like at the moment, this list will be a ever evolving and changing landscape i'm sure: "The success of the program in recruiting U.S.-trained scientists back to China has been viewed with concern from the U.S., with a June 2018 report from the National Intelligence Council declaring an underlying motivation of the program to be “to facilitate the legal and illicit transfer of US technology, intellectual property and know-how” to China." [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_Talents_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_Talents_Program

ethanbond 7y ago

Most European countries have been the US's strategic allies since at least WW2. China, meanwhile, is a strategic competitor to the United States. Why on earth would knowledge being shared with Europe have the same scrutiny applied?

wbl 7y ago
The knowledge gets published and shared with everyone.
- ethanbond 7y ago
  Not all knowledge gets published. In fact, the overwhelming majority of knowledge produced by these institutions - even ones whose goals are explicitly to publish - never sees publication. This is in itself a problem that ought to be solved, but for the time being makes this argument void.

ourlordcaffeine 7y ago

>Science being funded across borders isn’t a bad thing Collaboration is the key word here. This isn't science being funded across borders, this is research being stolen, such that the work is quickly finished off in China and published before the researchers in the US do, the thief and China getting all the credit to themselves and a bunch of knowledge at no cost. The difference with the EU is that it is mutual, consensual collaboration with both sides putting in work and funding.

capableweb 7y ago
> this is research being stolen Well, I guess copied would be a better word, as the people who "had the research" still has it. > quickly finished off in China and published before the researchers in the US do Sounds like they are doing a better job than US researchers then? Unless of course, they do a sloppy job finishing it, but then US researchers can just take their time, do it properly and people would use their research instead. Free market of research basically, just have to make sure your research is actually better.
- freeone3000 7y ago
  That's not how research works. The first paper published is the important one; all others are derivative, and must prove novelty or improvement anew. And even if you do, you must cite the first paper published, and that's the one with the prestige associated with the citation count, not yours, which might even be overlooked. Simply being "more robust" is unlikely to be sufficiently novel for acceptance into a journal or conference.
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  This "free market" is similar to JK Rowling asking me to proofread her new Harry Potter book that is 95% finished. I take it and "finish" the last 5% and then publish it as my own book. I honestly cannot understand this viewpoint that stealing private information is not only cool, but a good thing to do. I literally hear it only on hackernews and no where else in my life.
  - 7y ago

hourislate 7y ago

>This article is written from the standpoint that something is being lost, IP, to foreign governments. The target here is China. They alone are responsible for the largest transfer of wealth the world has ever seen (Trillions $$ in IP theft from western tax payers). There is a great book called "Future Wars-Mark Goodman" that details some of this theft of technology that the Chinese Gov and their agents have carried out not just from the US but Europe also.

logicchains 7y ago
Taking IP is not a "wealth transfer"; it's wealth copying. The productive capacity of the original holder of the IP/technology is not decreased by someone else also having it, although their revenue might be. This is different from if I go and steal your factory, which prevents you from producing whatever you were using the factory to produce. Intellectual property and property are qualitatively different, and many people argue that society would be better off without the former (see for instance the massive support for SciHub and movie piracy on HN).
- mitchty 7y ago
  If someone takes unpublished work for a paper, then uses all that unpublished as of yet work and publishes it, how is that "wealth copying". Its plagiarism as well as unethical, and it is indeed taking away the productive capacity of the person doing the original work. Support for SciHub is orthogonal to this, these academic papers don't exist yet. So not even the Arxiv would make sense, its not even a preprint, its work in progress thats being co-opted and used for gain within China. If you could explain how this state of affairs, aka upending the academic publishing model entirely by undermining the entire idea and using unpublished research for your own gain in another country, that would be a constructive way of addressing the issue at hand. As the issue at hand isn't directly economic, but it will affect economics at some point as money is involved.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- viro 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]