2 ms·
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 does
by sailfast 7y ago
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.
- filoleg 7y agoI 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.
- sailfast 7y agoFair 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.