5 ms·

Yeah, from the article: "Lauer also presented data on the nature of the violations that NIH has uncovered. Some 70% (133) of the researchers had failed to disc

Yeah, from the article: "Lauer also presented data on the nature of the violations that NIH has uncovered. Some 70% (133) of the researchers had failed to disclose to NIH the receipt of a foreign grant, and 54% had failed to disclose participation in a foreign talent program. In contrast, Lauer said, only 9% hid ties to a foreign company, and only 4% had an undisclosed foreign patent. Some 5% of cases involved a violation of NIH’s peer-review system." So sounds like ~90% of the 189 violations maybe just not checking a box. It's not clear to me what the violations were for the 54 people who were fired. From where I sit, science espionage from China certainly sounds plausible (And should be dealt with), but ginning up negligible issues to get rid of the wrong kind of people is a completely plausible move from the current administration.

the-dude 6y ago
Enforcement might deter ( is this proper English? ).
- edanm 6y ago
  It seems technically valid (maybe?) but it's pretty hard to parse. You should at least add another word or two to indicate what it would deter.
  - neltnerb 6y ago
    Slightly ambiguous because I think the GP actually meant something like "enforcement may decline (to penalize or press charges)" which is definitely true and likely the case if 90% of these are paperwork errors. There are definitely paperwork errors I can imagine, but it's difficult to imagine it being as simple a mistake as not checking the box that says "you have a job". More likely would be a grant office not being fully aware of a professors' funding sources or miscategorizing their funding in such a way that the grant office person helping with the paperwork marked it wrong and the professor didn't check carefully. That I would consider to be an "honest mistake" that gets corrected by moving money around and a strongly worried letter. Other stories I've heard go as far as two married professors who took their grant money and used it instead to move to an island resort for three months or something like that and didn't actually do the project at all. That was definitely a crime, but largely only because it involved the federal government. If they'd gotten a grant from a private company and didn't do what they promised it would likely be a civil lawsuit unless it rose to the level of actual illegal fraud.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
free_rms 6y ago
It's probably even dumber than that. 1) Trump or someone else in the WH becomes convinced that the NIH is full of Chinese spies 2) Some poor flak winds up with the job of producing some spies to fire, or else 3) We wind up with this weak sauce You know who would have absolutely none of these paperwork gaps? An actual spy.
- sremani 6y ago
  This is not about Trump and this is worst mis-direction tactic to derail the conversation and inquiry on this subject.
  - free_rms 6y ago
    .. it's a political situation involving the executive branch? I'm not sure what you mean by mis-direction.
  - throwaway2245 6y ago
    As an outsider it is extremely hard to see how this is disconnected from Trump. It's a political decision, entirely. Meanwhile, Trump has been escalating the treatment of China as a spying, cold-war-style enemy (and thus rehabilitating Russia from that role).
unishark 6y ago
> So sounds like ~90% of the 189 violations maybe just not checking a box. Like when you file you taxes and your only mistake is to forget to check that box that says you had a job? The Talents program comes with a lot of perks, some of which would be a pretty big deal to lie about. Like committing for 1-2 months in the summer in China, then telling the NIH you are available full-time in the summer also.
dumb1224 6y ago
It's sad to see a situation like this in the scientific community. The larger part of international chinese researchers are probably worried if this is spreading to non-US countries. Most of researchers I know returned to China in these programmes simply wanted a secure/easier/family life, which probably means they won't be outputting much research as the new environment won't be as creative and competitive as in the U.S /European research fields. I'm shocked to find these alleged espionage cases which seem to paint the opposite picture.
godelski 6y ago
These kinds of laws aren't really written for people making mistakes. They are about having a reason to stop someone that is suspected of something, but there is not enough evidence yet for an official arrest, from leaving the country. Think Capone getting arrested for tax violations and not for distribution of alcohol (actually there are laws on the books explicitly for this, because tax evasion is easier to prove). It's the same reason there's questions on the visa application like "do you intend to commit a crime while visiting" or "do you have connections to a terrorist organization". Obviously if people do, they are going to answer no. But if your cousin is a terrorist you might answer no. If you are leaving right after a terrorist attack committed by the group your cousin was in the US may want to stop you for questioning. They will use this law to stop you. From there they can ask more questions and find out if you were actually linked to the attack or not (in this hypothetical you weren't, so you are just let go). That doesn't mean it can't be abused, but that's what these questions are there for and why the articles are explicitly vague. These people were stopped (you have to have a reason to keep them in the country!) and being investigated. If they didn't do anything they will be let go (well are supposed to).

the-dude 6y ago

Enforcement might deter ( is this proper English? ).

edanm 6y ago
It seems technically valid (maybe?) but it's pretty hard to parse. You should at least add another word or two to indicate what it would deter.
- neltnerb 6y ago
  Slightly ambiguous because I think the GP actually meant something like "enforcement may decline (to penalize or press charges)" which is definitely true and likely the case if 90% of these are paperwork errors. There are definitely paperwork errors I can imagine, but it's difficult to imagine it being as simple a mistake as not checking the box that says "you have a job". More likely would be a grant office not being fully aware of a professors' funding sources or miscategorizing their funding in such a way that the grant office person helping with the paperwork marked it wrong and the professor didn't check carefully. That I would consider to be an "honest mistake" that gets corrected by moving money around and a strongly worried letter. Other stories I've heard go as far as two married professors who took their grant money and used it instead to move to an island resort for three months or something like that and didn't actually do the project at all. That was definitely a crime, but largely only because it involved the federal government. If they'd gotten a grant from a private company and didn't do what they promised it would likely be a civil lawsuit unless it rose to the level of actual illegal fraud.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

free_rms 6y ago

It's probably even dumber than that. 1) Trump or someone else in the WH becomes convinced that the NIH is full of Chinese spies 2) Some poor flak winds up with the job of producing some spies to fire, or else 3) We wind up with this weak sauce You know who would have absolutely none of these paperwork gaps? An actual spy.

sremani 6y ago
This is not about Trump and this is worst mis-direction tactic to derail the conversation and inquiry on this subject.
- free_rms 6y ago
  .. it's a political situation involving the executive branch? I'm not sure what you mean by mis-direction.
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  As an outsider it is extremely hard to see how this is disconnected from Trump. It's a political decision, entirely. Meanwhile, Trump has been escalating the treatment of China as a spying, cold-war-style enemy (and thus rehabilitating Russia from that role).

unishark 6y ago

> So sounds like ~90% of the 189 violations maybe just not checking a box. Like when you file you taxes and your only mistake is to forget to check that box that says you had a job? The Talents program comes with a lot of perks, some of which would be a pretty big deal to lie about. Like committing for 1-2 months in the summer in China, then telling the NIH you are available full-time in the summer also.

dumb1224 6y ago

It's sad to see a situation like this in the scientific community. The larger part of international chinese researchers are probably worried if this is spreading to non-US countries. Most of researchers I know returned to China in these programmes simply wanted a secure/easier/family life, which probably means they won't be outputting much research as the new environment won't be as creative and competitive as in the U.S /European research fields. I'm shocked to find these alleged espionage cases which seem to paint the opposite picture.

godelski 6y ago

These kinds of laws aren't really written for people making mistakes. They are about having a reason to stop someone that is suspected of something, but there is not enough evidence yet for an official arrest, from leaving the country. Think Capone getting arrested for tax violations and not for distribution of alcohol (actually there are laws on the books explicitly for this, because tax evasion is easier to prove). It's the same reason there's questions on the visa application like "do you intend to commit a crime while visiting" or "do you have connections to a terrorist organization". Obviously if people do, they are going to answer no. But if your cousin is a terrorist you might answer no. If you are leaving right after a terrorist attack committed by the group your cousin was in the US may want to stop you for questioning. They will use this law to stop you. From there they can ask more questions and find out if you were actually linked to the attack or not (in this hypothetical you weren't, so you are just let go). That doesn't mean it can't be abused, but that's what these questions are there for and why the articles are explicitly vague. These people were stopped (you have to have a reason to keep them in the country!) and being investigated. If they didn't do anything they will be let go (well are supposed to).