6 ms·

National Science Foundation reveals details on foreign-influence investigations

69 points by MindGods 6y ago

MR4D 6y ago
FTA: "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.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bigpumpkin 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_Talents_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_Talents_Plan
LatteLazy 6y ago
The NSF funds about 10,000 grants per year. 16-20 (which is it!?) of those might have done something wrong. 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 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation
- jvanderbot 6y ago
  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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
beambot 6y ago
Article talks a lot about policy violations, but very little about the policy itself. Anyone know: what is the policy?
- Frost1x 6y ago
  Probably with respect to policies clarified and enacted with respect to the JASON report the NSF commissioned last year (given the context): https://nsf.gov/news/special_reports/jasonsecurity/NSF_response_JASON.pdf https://nsf.gov/news/special_reports/jasonsecurity/NSF_respo...
- mxcrossr 6y ago
  They mention the case of Charles Leiber [1] which might be informative. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_M._Lieber#Federal_arrest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_M._Lieber#Federal_arre...
  - klipt 6y ago
    > 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 6y 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. [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-and-two-chinese-nationals-charged-three-separate-china-related https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-...

69 points by MindGods 6y ago

MR4D 6y ago

FTA: "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.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bigpumpkin 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_Talents_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_Talents_Plan

LatteLazy 6y ago

The NSF funds about 10,000 grants per year. 16-20 (which is it!?) of those might have done something wrong. 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 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation

jvanderbot 6y ago
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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

beambot 6y ago

Article talks a lot about policy violations, but very little about the policy itself. Anyone know: what is the policy?

Frost1x 6y ago
Probably with respect to policies clarified and enacted with respect to the JASON report the NSF commissioned last year (given the context): https://nsf.gov/news/special_reports/jasonsecurity/NSF_response_JASON.pdf https://nsf.gov/news/special_reports/jasonsecurity/NSF_respo...
mxcrossr 6y ago
They mention the case of Charles Leiber [1] which might be informative. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_M._Lieber#Federal_arrest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_M._Lieber#Federal_arre...
- klipt 6y ago
  > 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 6y 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. [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-and-two-chinese-nationals-charged-three-separate-china-related https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-...