麻省理工学院（MIT）校长Rafael Reif MIT研究副校长Maria Zuber 亲爱的Reif和 Zube博士, 波士顿联邦调查局（FBI）于2021年1月13日逮捕陈刚博士不是其他，就是种族主义行为。 如果MIT不支持陈刚博士，MIT将被认为参与了二十一世纪最糟糕的学术界种族歧视案例之一。 陈博士是受高度尊重的MIT科学家。他与中国的关系是学术界非常正常的关系。 陈博士与南方科技大学（南科大）的关系，你们两位都知道。南科大所在的深圳市领导曾经访问MIT，与MIT领导层会晤。陈博士与南科大签署的合约是代表MIT，不是代表他本人。陈博士咨询南科大丝毫不是秘密。 FBI对陈博士的关键指控是陈博士在申请能源部经费时，没有披露他与中国的五个关系：1）南科大顾问，2）中国国家自然科学基金会的评审专家，3）中关村发展集团战略科学家，4）中国留学生基金会顾问，5）中国第四届海外专家顾问。 这一指控极其荒谬。首先，研究经费发放机构要求申请人披露与研究相关的关系，以避免同一研究有多重经费支持。如果申请人有一项研究同时得到美国两个基金、或一个美国基金和一个中国基金支持，他应该披露。但以上五个关系都无关陈博士的研究经费，所以他当然不用在研究经费申请上披露。其次，他的这些关系是大多数学者一般的校外活动，不影响其研究和工作。它们不影响经费评审过程，不用向经费单位披露。第三，美国科学家为外国基金发放单位（如中国国家自然科学基金委）评审是常规工作。如果不披露为中国国家基金会评审经费是罪，那么有可能几乎所有MIT教授都可以被起诉曾经为以色列、意大利或英国政府的经费机构评审过研究课题。单单挑出中国的科学基金会为政府机构当然是种族主义，因为所有主要政府都有科学基金会。 陈博士的其他四个关系，可能充其量加起来一年只需要用他半天时间。与他有那些关系的机构不过是用他的名字，以便报告上级，自己“咨询了”国际顾问。 问题的根本所在，当然众所周知：川普主义从根本上腐蚀了美国的道德。 美国需要做很多才能从川普主义恢复过来。全世界都见证了，在川普和他的谎言面前，美国很少政治家有脊梁。 人们当然希望，作为学术卓越和学术自由灯塔的MIT，将昂起头颅，在波士顿FBI及其探员面前显示自己的脊梁，保护陈博士。 这是为陈博士，也是（如果不是更是）为MIT。 世界在看着。 饶毅 主题: MIT and racism Re: A slippery road Rafael Reif Chancellor, MIT Maria Zuber Vice Chancellor for Research, MIT Dear Drs. Reif and Zuber, The arrest of Dr. Gang Chen on January 13th 2021 by the Boston FBI is nothing but thinly veiled racism. If MIT does not support Dr. Gang Chen, MIT will be implicated in one of the worst cases of academic racism in the 21st century. Dr. Chen is a highly respected scientist at MIT. His associations with China are very normal in academia. Dr. Chen’s association with the Southern University of Science and Technology, or SUSTech, is known to both of you. The top leadership of Shenzhen city, where SUSTech is located, visited MIT and have met the MIT leadership. Dr. Chen signed an agreement with SUSTech on behalf of MIT, not on behalf of himself. There is no secret hidden by Dr. Chen that he is advising SUSTech. The key charge by the FBI was that Dr. Chen did not disclose on his grant proposal to the DOE 5 associations with China: 1) an advisor to SUSTech, 2) “review expert” for the National Natural Science Foundation of China or NNSFC, 3) a Zhongguanchun Development Group or ZDG Overseas Strategic Scientist, 4) an advisor to the China Scholar Councilor or CSC, and 5) a “4th Overseas Expert Consultant” to the PRC government. This is a ridiculous charge. First of all, funding agencies require applicants to disclose associations that are related to the research in the grant proposal, so that a research project does not receive duplicate funding. So, if Dr. Chen has a project funded by both a US agency and another US or Chinese agency, he should have disclosed it. But none of the 5 associations are related to Dr. Chen’s research funding, so of course he should not list them on his grant proposals. Secondly, these associations are usual outside activities of most scholars that do not impinge on their own research or work. Thus, they do not affect grant review processes and do not need to be disclosed to funding agencies. Thirdly, reviewing grants for other countries (such as NNSFC) is a regular activity. If failure to report reviewing for NNSFC is a crime, then almost all MIT professors could be charged with reviewing for funding agencies of Israeli, Italian, or British governments. Singling out a science foundation of China as a government agency is simply racism as all major governments have science foundations. The other four associations of Dr. Chen would add up to less than half a day of work per year because those associations have little to ask him other than using his name to let superiors know that each agency “had consulted” international experts. The root of the problem is, of course, known to all of us: Trumpism has fundamentally eroded morality in the US. Much have to be done for the US to recover from Trumpism. The entire world has witnessed how few US politicians have spines, in front of Trump and his lies. We certainly hope that MIT, a beacon of academic excellency and freedom, will hold its head high and show your spine in front of a racist Boston FBI and its agents in defending Dr. Chen. This is for Dr. Chen, but it is also, if not more, for MIT. The world is watching. Yi Rao 发件人: Transmissome <[email protected]> 日期: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 1:51 PM 至: Maria Zuber 抄送: "L. Rafael Reif" >, "R. Gregory Morgan" 主题: A slippery road Dear Maria, I appreciate that you are “a strong and vocal proponent of the U.S. having an open research system that attracts the best students and faculty from around the world”. The NIH recommendation for strict control is based on a rule that was not and can not by enforced in the court. In effect, it will only create frictions in the US and distrust by other countries such as China. I am glad that, on your panel, Dr. Wallace Loh of the University of Maryland studies law. NIH is using “Other Supports” to ask applicants to list funding sources and projects. But: 1) what was written in Other Support was never a big deal. The major purpose was to ensure that there is no duplication of federal support of the same project at the same time. Most applicants would list federal and other public sources, but not private donations. Funding from foreign sources has always been unclear, but no one cares. There is a good possibility that Japanese government funds, in the form of RIKEN, support research on learning and memory at MIT. You can check, but my guess is that such support has not been listed in any of the NIH grant applications of the MIT investigators. I do not blame them, I think that this was OK if I sat on an NIH study section reviewing their grant applications. 2) NIH grant applications are supposed to be true, but how can they be required to be “complete”? This is scientifically impossible. The major parts of the grant application are not “OTHER SUPPORT”, but “Preliminary Studies” and “Research Design and Methods”. In most experiments, one will obtain positive and negative results. Few if any grant applicants will list negative results countering their own plan in grant proposals. It is understood and allowed because researchers have the freedom to decide the best way forward based on their own judgement of their results. They are not required to provide complete information. If they choose the wrong road despite their knowledge of negative results, it will be to their detriment. But they can ignore some negative results and move forward and, with more experiments after NIH funding approval and support, find their hunch to be correct. This happens in science again and again. Because of this, Jim Watson of the double helix fame once remarked that a good theory should not be ruined by bad results. 3) How can Chinese or Japanese funding influence NIH in a bad way? I can not imagine. I don’t know who can. If a PI in the US gets an extra lab in China or Japan, the funding is usually for the labs in China or Japan, not his/her US labs. His/her home institutions would want to ensure he/she still performs well in the home institution, but that requires no extraordinary caution because many biomedical scientists have associations with companies. Because the PI’s US lab is not supported by other sources, it is unclear whether he or she should list them in OTHER SUPPORT. If a PI has funding from another country supporting his/her lab in the US, that complements and amplifies the NIH support, and strengthens the mission of the NIH. How can that be wrong? NIH study sections review grant applications with NIH criteria, and if NIH decides to fund a proposal, it is because the NIH finds it good enough. In summary, the ado about nothing created by the NIH will have no good effect because there was no real problem to be solved. Problems with a few bad eggs are not systematic and can be solved with existing rules and laws at existing institutions, without consuming the time and efforts of the NIH. Keeping this report only sends a signal that the NIH and US academic institutions agree with the Very-Large-Brain: keep distances from the Chinese. What a sad turn of events? US scientists and academic institutions used to support scientists who suffered in Soviet Union, for example. Now, some Chinese academics are blocked from visiting the US (including attending symposia at MIT), or intensely questioned at the airports. This is the first time US scientists and academic institutions have joined in persecuting scientists from other countries (a few Houston biomedical researchers were investigated in the Clinton manner, stretching from one question to another until the focus was far from the original and could not even be tested in courts but careers were already ruined, all sending the same signal: dare you have Chinese connections). If academics can go this far, then what can possibly prevent the Very-Large-Brain and his people to push in other ways (note the recent arrest of a Chinese IT company executive, a Chinese citizen supposedly have violated US domestic law while working in China)? The Chinese are now puzzled, and if push comes to shovel, the usually quiet Chinese will be forced to walk away. This is a slippery road that was pushed by the US side along, against many other countries. Yi 发件人: Maria Zuber 日期: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 6:19 AM 至: Transmissome 抄送: Maria Zuber 主题: Re: thinly veiled discrimination based on national and racial origins Dear Prof. Yi-- Thank you for taking the time to write to me and other members of our panel about your concerns. I am a strong and vocal proponent of the U.S. having an open research system that attracts the best students and faculty from around the world, and those views are shared by our entire panel. Our report explicitly discusses the value of foreign scholars. That said, it is important to ensure that all researchers who receive research funding from the U.S. government be open about their support and comply with basic, longstanding rules. The goal of our report is to remedy transgressions that have been uncovered at NIH, so that valuable international collaborations can continue. Thank you again for taking the time to lay out your concerns. Sincerely— Maria Zuber On Dec 15, 2018, at 11:16 PM, Yi Rao wrote: Dear Dr. Zuber, I met the delegation led by the MIT president a few weeks ago. I was encouraged that MIT is not bending to the toxic brand of Trumpistic xenophobia. I am surprised now that you were one of the co-signatories of to the report presented by the Advisory Committee to the NIH director: Foreign Influences on Research Integrity. I was on the Faculty of Washington University School of Medicine from 1994 to 2004, in the then Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology (now Neuroscience). I enjoyed my ten years at Wash U and my children also grew up there. I felt welcome at Wash U, though racial discrimination in hiring continued but discriminations were not overt. The report on Foreign Influences on Research Integrity is a textbook case of distortions, fabrications and lies, all beginning with thinly veiled national and racial discriminations. NIH’s mission is to support biomedical research to improve human health. Your institution is here to save lives, not a military organization to kill people of other countries. NIH does not even claim intellectual properties from research supported by its grants. So the current hysteria is not based on your own mission, but hypocritic response to Trumpism. MIT has many Chinese scholars and students. The first Chinese biochemist Hsien Wu was trained at MIT before he invented the most useful method for measuring blood glucose with Dr. Folin at Harvard Medical School. The Folin-Wu method helped millions of patients over many decades. Upon returning to China in the 1920s, he became father of biochemistry in China and made contributions regarding antibodies and protein folding. I hope that you do not view current Chinese students and scholars at MIT as thieves sent by China. They all went there for career development, some even with American dreams. How disappointed they would be if they find out that their director and deputy director are all responsible for a report implying that China a systematic effort to steal intellectual properties through students and scholars in non-militarily related disciplines. Had it not been about them, they would have "laughed to death” (a Chinese proverb). I am one of the 4 scholars who proposed what was later named awkwardly as the Thousand Talent Program. Its purpose was solely to recruit. All countries do this. Canada has a program called Canadian Chairs which also includes recruitment. From the 1980s to 2010, Chinese universities and research institutes have been semi-depleted in science because large numbers of Chinese scientists have emigrated. It is very reasonable for China to recruit when resources allow. The other reason is for China to pay back to the world with increasing support of science: most advances in sciences contribute to humankind, not limited to one country. It is so ironic when China’s effort to contribute to humankind is now distorted by Trumpism prevalently in the US. A major problem with the Thousand Talent Program is that a fraction of the putative recruits hesitate about returning to China full time, some of them may need a transition, which is reasonable, but some intentionally take labs and funds in China while living and working in the US with no intention to move to China full time. Whether this is allowed is decided by individual institutions, and not encouraged by the central government. If fact, the government wants to clean up this kind because it is viewed as a waste of Chinese resources. Some institutions intentionally hide such cases from the government so that they do not get blamed. For universities such as Peking, we do not allow that. When such cases arise, China usually loses because such individuals have full time jobs in the US, and thus stick to US rules and laws, but not those in China where they only have part time jobs. Some even take such advantages only to visit their families. Thus, not only the Thousand Talent Program never tries to steal intellectual properties, but its major problem actually hurts China. It does not hurt the US at all, when US scientists get extra funding and resources. Research in biomedical sciences leads to papers published in journals accessible to all scientists. When a few individuals behaved wrongly, it is their fault, not the fault of an entire country or billions of people. The current NIH director, Dr. Francis Collins, once withdrew two papers because of fabrications by a student in his lab. Should we call the Collins lab a thief or liar? Or by extrapolation, call the NIH an institution led by someone who had scientific misconduct? Of course not. Because the problems were the faults of that student, not Dr. Collins or the NIH (or the University of Michigan at that time). I hope that you will revise this report or withdraw your signatory. When history looks back, this report, as it stands now, will be a stain on everyone who signed the morally corrupt report. Sincerely Yi Rao, Ph.D. Professor and Director, PKU-IDG/McGovern Institute for Brain Research Dean, Division of Sciences, Peking University Director, Chinese Institute for Brain Research, Beijing China <NIH 12 13 2018 Foreign Influences[1].pdf> ____________________________________________ Maria T. Zuber Vice President for Research E.A. Griswold Professor of Geophysics Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, 3-234 Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 Research Office: Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, 54-518 Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 Phone: 617.253.6397 http://www-geodyn.mit.edu Not all those who wander are lost. -- J.R.R. Tolkien
敲山震虎,是一种手段。至于是不是应该抓，我想起了我朋友的故事： Last year, a friend of mine drove from New Jersey to Florida. It was a long drive so he started really early in the morning but by the time he reached North Carolina he noticed the speed limit was 70 and everyone was flying down the highway. He drove a Porsche Panorama and originally he was in the middle lane so he decided to switch to the fast lane and flow with the traffic. He realized the speedometer was constantly hitting 80+ so he was a bit concerned. “Geez I might get a speeding ticket”, he thought. But after a while, he just got used to the speed, he was going with the flow and sometimes hitting even 90 miles/hr. "Wow this is great, I might get to Florida ahead of schedule." so he thought... Unfortunately he got pulled over. He as shocked and upset: "Why me? This cop has nothing better to do? Is it because I am driving a Porsche?...". Sitting on the shoulder of the highway just off one the exit ramps, he told the cop: “Officer， I was driving above the speed limit once a while but I was merely keeping up with the traffic...blah blah...". The officer kept writing his ticket and my friend became agitated. He felt it was so unfair. His raised his voice and complained, pointing to the cars flew by them on the highway: "Look, look, look, all these cars are speeding. I was merely keeping up with the traffic and not paying too much attention to the speed limit. Why am I the only one got pulled over? It is so so unfair! Why only me?! Why don't you go and catch them all??..." ”Why don't you shut up? You know I can't catch them all. That's why I've gotten you!"
"Gang Chen, 56, was charged by criminal complaint with wire fraud, failing to file a foreign bank account report (FBAR) and making a false statement in a tax return." https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/mit-professor-arrested-and-charged-grant-fraud Wire fraud 明白么？就是这边有account 收钱。 起诉最重的是这一条。这条最高是判20年。税上问题都是毛毛雨。 The charge of wire fraud provides for a sentence of up to 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000. The charge of making false statements provides for a sentence of up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The charge of failing to file an FBAR provides for a sentence of up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000.
敲山震虎,是一种手段。至于是不是应该抓，我想起了我朋友的故事： Last year, a friend of mine drove from New Jersey to Florida. It was a long drive so he started really early in the morning but by the time he reached North Carolina he noticed the speed limit was 70 and everyone was flying down the highway. He drove a Porsche Panorama and originally he was in the middle lane so he decided to switch to the fast lane and flow with the traffic. He realized the speedometer was constantly hitting 80+ so he was a bit concerned. “Geez I might get a speeding ticket”, he thought. But after a while, he just got used to the speed, he was going with the flow and sometimes hitting even 90 miles/hr. "Wow this is great, I might get to Florida ahead of schedule." so he thought... Unfortunately he got pulled over. He as shocked and upset: "Why me? This cop has nothing better to do? Is it because I am driving a Porsche?...". Sitting on the shoulder of the highway just off one the exit ramps, he told the cop: “Officer， I was driving above the speed limit once a while but I was merely keeping up with the traffic...blah blah...". The officer kept writing his ticket and my friend became agitated. He felt it was so unfair. His raised his voice and complained, pointing to the cars flew by them on the highway: "Look, look, look, all these cars are speeding. I was merely keeping up with the traffic and not paying too much attention to the speed limit. Why am I the only one got pulled over? It is so so unfair! Why only me?! Why don't you go and catch them all??..." ”Why don't you shut up? You know I can't catch them all. That's why I've gotten you!"
敲山震虎,是一种手段。至于是不是应该抓，我想起了我朋友的故事： Last year, a friend of mine drove from New Jersey to Florida. It was a long drive so he started really early in the morning but by the time he reached North Carolina he noticed the speed limit was 70 and everyone was flying down the highway. He drove a Porsche Panorama and originally he was in the middle lane so he decided to switch to the fast lane and flow with the traffic. He realized the speedometer was constantly hitting 80+ so he was a bit concerned. “Geez I might get a speeding ticket”, he thought. But after a while, he just got used to the speed, he was going with the flow and sometimes hitting even 90 miles/hr. "Wow this is great, I might get to Florida ahead of schedule." so he thought... Unfortunately he got pulled over. He as shocked and upset: "Why me? This cop has nothing better to do? Is it because I am driving a Porsche?...". Sitting on the shoulder of the highway just off one the exit ramps, he told the cop: “Officer， I was driving above the speed limit once a while but I was merely keeping up with the traffic...blah blah...". The officer kept writing his ticket and my friend became agitated. He felt it was so unfair. His raised his voice and complained, pointing to the cars flew by them on the highway: "Look, look, look, all these cars are speeding. I was merely keeping up with the traffic and not paying too much attention to the speed limit. Why am I the only one got pulled over? It is so so unfair! Why only me?! Why don't you go and catch them all??..." ”Why don't you shut up? You know I can't catch them all. That's why I've gotten you!"
MIT研究副校长Maria Zuber 亲爱的Reif和 Zube博士,
波士顿联邦调查局（FBI）于2021年1月13日逮捕陈刚博士不是其他，就是种族主义行为。
如果MIT不支持陈刚博士，MIT将被认为参与了二十一世纪最糟糕的学术界种族歧视案例之一。
陈博士是受高度尊重的MIT科学家。他与中国的关系是学术界非常正常的关系。
陈博士与南方科技大学（南科大）的关系，你们两位都知道。南科大所在的深圳市领导曾经访问MIT，与MIT领导层会晤。陈博士与南科大签署的合约是代表MIT，不是代表他本人。陈博士咨询南科大丝毫不是秘密。
FBI对陈博士的关键指控是陈博士在申请能源部经费时，没有披露他与中国的五个关系：1）南科大顾问，2）中国国家自然科学基金会的评审专家，3）中关村发展集团战略科学家，4）中国留学生基金会顾问，5）中国第四届海外专家顾问。
这一指控极其荒谬。首先，研究经费发放机构要求申请人披露与研究相关的关系，以避免同一研究有多重经费支持。如果申请人有一项研究同时得到美国两个基金、或一个美国基金和一个中国基金支持，他应该披露。但以上五个关系都无关陈博士的研究经费，所以他当然不用在研究经费申请上披露。其次，他的这些关系是大多数学者一般的校外活动，不影响其研究和工作。它们不影响经费评审过程，不用向经费单位披露。第三，美国科学家为外国基金发放单位（如中国国家自然科学基金委）评审是常规工作。如果不披露为中国国家基金会评审经费是罪，那么有可能几乎所有MIT教授都可以被起诉曾经为以色列、意大利或英国政府的经费机构评审过研究课题。单单挑出中国的科学基金会为政府机构当然是种族主义，因为所有主要政府都有科学基金会。
陈博士的其他四个关系，可能充其量加起来一年只需要用他半天时间。与他有那些关系的机构不过是用他的名字，以便报告上级，自己“咨询了”国际顾问。
问题的根本所在，当然众所周知：川普主义从根本上腐蚀了美国的道德。
美国需要做很多才能从川普主义恢复过来。全世界都见证了，在川普和他的谎言面前，美国很少政治家有脊梁。
人们当然希望，作为学术卓越和学术自由灯塔的MIT，将昂起头颅，在波士顿FBI及其探员面前显示自己的脊梁，保护陈博士。
这是为陈博士，也是（如果不是更是）为MIT。
世界在看着。
饶毅
主题: MIT and racism Re: A slippery road Rafael Reif Chancellor, MIT Maria Zuber Vice Chancellor for Research, MIT
Dear Drs. Reif and Zuber,
The arrest of Dr. Gang Chen on January 13th 2021 by the Boston FBI is nothing but thinly veiled racism.
If MIT does not support Dr. Gang Chen, MIT will be implicated in one of the worst cases of academic racism in the 21st century.
Dr. Chen is a highly respected scientist at MIT. His associations with China are very normal in academia.
Dr. Chen’s association with the Southern University of Science and Technology, or SUSTech, is known to both of you. The top leadership of Shenzhen city, where SUSTech is located, visited MIT and have met the MIT leadership. Dr. Chen signed an agreement with SUSTech on behalf of MIT, not on behalf of himself. There is no secret hidden by Dr. Chen that he is advising SUSTech.
The key charge by the FBI was that Dr. Chen did not disclose on his grant proposal to the DOE 5 associations with China: 1) an advisor to SUSTech, 2) “review expert” for the National Natural Science Foundation of China or NNSFC, 3) a Zhongguanchun Development Group or ZDG Overseas Strategic Scientist, 4) an advisor to the China Scholar Councilor or CSC, and 5) a “4th Overseas Expert Consultant” to the PRC government.
This is a ridiculous charge. First of all, funding agencies require applicants to disclose associations that are related to the research in the grant proposal, so that a research project does not receive duplicate funding. So, if Dr. Chen has a project funded by both a US agency and another US or Chinese agency, he should have disclosed it. But none of the 5 associations are related to Dr. Chen’s research funding, so of course he should not list them on his grant proposals. Secondly, these associations are usual outside activities of most scholars that do not impinge on their own research or work. Thus, they do not affect grant review processes and do not need to be disclosed to funding agencies. Thirdly, reviewing grants for other countries (such as NNSFC) is a regular activity. If failure to report reviewing for NNSFC is a crime, then almost all MIT professors could be charged with reviewing for funding agencies of Israeli, Italian, or British governments. Singling out a science foundation of China as a government agency is simply racism as all major governments have science foundations.
The other four associations of Dr. Chen would add up to less than half a day of work per year because those associations have little to ask him other than using his name to let superiors know that each agency “had consulted” international experts.
The root of the problem is, of course, known to all of us: Trumpism has fundamentally eroded morality in the US.
Much have to be done for the US to recover from Trumpism. The entire world has witnessed how few US politicians have spines, in front of Trump and his lies.
We certainly hope that MIT, a beacon of academic excellency and freedom, will hold its head high and show your spine in front of a racist Boston FBI and its agents in defending Dr. Chen.
This is for Dr. Chen, but it is also, if not more, for MIT.
The world is watching.
Yi Rao
发件人: Transmissome <[email protected]> 日期: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 1:51 PM 至: Maria Zuber 抄送: "L. Rafael Reif" >, "R. Gregory Morgan" 主题: A slippery road
Dear Maria,
I appreciate that you are “a strong and vocal proponent of the U.S. having an open research system that attracts the best students and faculty from around the world”. The NIH recommendation for strict control is based on a rule that was not and can not by enforced in the court. In effect, it will only create frictions in the US and distrust by other countries such as China.
I am glad that, on your panel, Dr. Wallace Loh of the University of Maryland studies law.
NIH is using “Other Supports” to ask applicants to list funding sources and projects. But:
1) what was written in Other Support was never a big deal. The major purpose was to ensure that there is no duplication of federal support of the same project at the same time. Most applicants would list federal and other public sources, but not private donations.
Funding from foreign sources has always been unclear, but no one cares. There is a good possibility that Japanese government funds, in the form of RIKEN, support research on learning and memory at MIT. You can check, but my guess is that such support has not been listed in any of the NIH grant applications of the MIT investigators. I do not blame them, I think that this was OK if I sat on an NIH study section reviewing their grant applications.
2) NIH grant applications are supposed to be true, but how can they be required to be “complete”? This is scientifically impossible. The major parts of the grant application are not “OTHER SUPPORT”, but “Preliminary Studies” and “Research Design and Methods”.
In most experiments, one will obtain positive and negative results. Few if any grant applicants will list negative results countering their own plan in grant proposals. It is understood and allowed because researchers have the freedom to decide the best way forward based on their own judgement of their results. They are not required to provide complete information. If they choose the wrong road despite their knowledge of negative results, it will be to their detriment. But they can ignore some negative results and move forward and, with more experiments after NIH funding approval and support, find their hunch to be correct.
This happens in science again and again. Because of this, Jim Watson of the double helix fame once remarked that a good theory should not be ruined by bad results.
3) How can Chinese or Japanese funding influence NIH in a bad way? I can not imagine. I don’t know who can.
If a PI in the US gets an extra lab in China or Japan, the funding is usually for the labs in China or Japan, not his/her US labs.
His/her home institutions would want to ensure he/she still performs well in the home institution, but that requires no extraordinary caution because many biomedical scientists have associations with companies.
Because the PI’s US lab is not supported by other sources, it is unclear whether he or she should list them in OTHER SUPPORT.
If a PI has funding from another country supporting his/her lab in the US, that complements and amplifies the NIH support, and strengthens the mission of the NIH. How can that be wrong? NIH study sections review grant applications with NIH criteria, and if NIH decides to fund a proposal, it is because the NIH finds it good enough.
In summary, the ado about nothing created by the NIH will have no good effect because there was no real problem to be solved. Problems with a few bad eggs are not systematic and can be solved with existing rules and laws at existing institutions, without consuming the time and efforts of the NIH.
Keeping this report only sends a signal that the NIH and US academic institutions agree with the Very-Large-Brain: keep distances from the Chinese.
What a sad turn of events? US scientists and academic institutions used to support scientists who suffered in Soviet Union, for example. Now, some Chinese academics are blocked from visiting the US (including attending symposia at MIT), or intensely questioned at the airports. This is the first time US scientists and academic institutions have joined in persecuting scientists from other countries (a few Houston biomedical researchers were investigated in the Clinton manner, stretching from one question to another until the focus was far from the original and could not even be tested in courts but careers were already ruined, all sending the same signal: dare you have Chinese connections).
If academics can go this far, then what can possibly prevent the Very-Large-Brain and his people to push in other ways (note the recent arrest of a Chinese IT company executive, a Chinese citizen supposedly have violated US domestic law while working in China)?
The Chinese are now puzzled, and if push comes to shovel, the usually quiet Chinese will be forced to walk away.
This is a slippery road that was pushed by the US side along, against many other countries.
Yi
发件人: Maria Zuber 日期: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 6:19 AM 至: Transmissome 抄送: Maria Zuber 主题: Re: thinly veiled discrimination based on national and racial origins
Dear Prof. Yi--
Thank you for taking the time to write to me and other members of our panel about your concerns. I am a strong and vocal proponent of the U.S. having an open research system that attracts the best students and faculty from around the world, and those views are shared by our entire panel. Our report explicitly discusses the value of foreign scholars.
That said, it is important to ensure that all researchers who receive research funding from the U.S. government be open about their support and comply with basic, longstanding rules. The goal of our report is to remedy transgressions that have been uncovered at NIH, so that valuable international collaborations can continue.
Thank you again for taking the time to lay out your concerns.
Sincerely—
Maria Zuber
On Dec 15, 2018, at 11:16 PM, Yi Rao wrote: Dear Dr. Zuber,
I met the delegation led by the MIT president a few weeks ago. I was encouraged that MIT is not bending to the toxic brand of Trumpistic xenophobia.
I am surprised now that you were one of the co-signatories of to the report presented by the Advisory Committee to the NIH director: Foreign Influences on Research Integrity. I was on the Faculty of Washington University School of Medicine from 1994 to 2004, in the then Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology (now Neuroscience). I enjoyed my ten years at Wash U and my children also grew up there. I felt welcome at Wash U, though racial discrimination in hiring continued but discriminations were not overt.
The report on Foreign Influences on Research Integrity is a textbook case of distortions, fabrications and lies, all beginning with thinly veiled national and racial discriminations. NIH’s mission is to support biomedical research to improve human health. Your institution is here to save lives, not a military organization to kill people of other countries. NIH does not even claim intellectual properties from research supported by its grants. So the current hysteria is not based on your own mission, but hypocritic response to Trumpism.
MIT has many Chinese scholars and students. The first Chinese biochemist Hsien Wu was trained at MIT before he invented the most useful method for measuring blood glucose with Dr. Folin at Harvard Medical School. The Folin-Wu method helped millions of patients over many decades. Upon returning to China in the 1920s, he became father of biochemistry in China and made contributions regarding antibodies and protein folding.
I hope that you do not view current Chinese students and scholars at MIT as thieves sent by China. They all went there for career development, some even with American dreams. How disappointed they would be if they find out that their director and deputy director are all responsible for a report implying that China a systematic effort to steal intellectual properties through students and scholars in non-militarily related disciplines. Had it not been about them, they would have "laughed to death” (a Chinese proverb). I am one of the 4 scholars who proposed what was later named awkwardly as the Thousand Talent Program. Its purpose was solely to recruit. All countries do this. Canada has a program called Canadian Chairs which also includes recruitment.
From the 1980s to 2010, Chinese universities and research institutes have been semi-depleted in science because large numbers of Chinese scientists have emigrated. It is very reasonable for China to recruit when resources allow. The other reason is for China to pay back to the world with increasing support of science: most advances in sciences contribute to humankind, not limited to one country. It is so ironic when China’s effort to contribute to humankind is now distorted by Trumpism prevalently in the US. A major problem with the Thousand Talent Program is that a fraction of the putative recruits hesitate about returning to China full time, some of them may need a transition, which is reasonable, but some intentionally take labs and funds in China while living and working in the US with no intention to move to China full time. Whether this is allowed is decided by individual institutions, and not encouraged by the central government. If fact, the government wants to clean up this kind because it is viewed as a waste of Chinese resources. Some institutions intentionally hide such cases from the government so that they do not get blamed. For universities such as Peking, we do not allow that. When such cases arise, China usually loses because such individuals have full time jobs in the US, and thus stick to US rules and laws, but not those in China where they only have part time jobs. Some even take such advantages only to visit their families.
Thus, not only the Thousand Talent Program never tries to steal intellectual properties, but its major problem actually hurts China. It does not hurt the US at all, when US scientists get extra funding and resources. Research in biomedical sciences leads to papers published in journals accessible to all scientists.
When a few individuals behaved wrongly, it is their fault, not the fault of an entire country or billions of people. The current NIH director, Dr. Francis Collins, once withdrew two papers because of fabrications by a student in his lab. Should we call the Collins lab a thief or liar? Or by extrapolation, call the NIH an institution led by someone who had scientific misconduct? Of course not. Because the problems were the faults of that student, not Dr. Collins or the NIH (or the University of Michigan at that time).
I hope that you will revise this report or withdraw your signatory.
When history looks back, this report, as it stands now, will be a stain on everyone who signed the morally corrupt report.
Sincerely Yi Rao, Ph.D.
Professor and Director, PKU-IDG/McGovern Institute for Brain Research Dean, Division of Sciences, Peking University Director, Chinese Institute for Brain Research, Beijing China
<NIH 12 13 2018 Foreign Influences[1].pdf> ____________________________________________ Maria T. Zuber Vice President for Research E.A. Griswold Professor of Geophysics Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, 3-234 Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 Research Office: Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, 54-518 Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 Phone: 617.253.6397 http://www-geodyn.mit.edu Not all those who wander are lost. -- J.R.R. Tolkien
提啥提，你觉得就是因为这个才抓的吗，你自己信吗？真是令人无语
陈刚电脑里面有没有儿童色情图片？
https://www.mediaite.com/print/nyts-paul-krugman-says-hacker-downloaded-child-pornography-using-his-ip-address/
莫须有？饶毅自己都不敢说莫须有。
irs这种没上报国外账户最多是罚钱，还没你们法拉盛偷税严重
那些见钱眼开的教授这些年都做了些什么，真活该。
Last year, a friend of mine drove from New Jersey to Florida. It was a long drive so he started really early in the morning but by the time he reached North Carolina he noticed the speed limit was 70 and everyone was flying down the highway. He drove a Porsche Panorama and originally he was in the middle lane so he decided to switch to the fast lane and flow with the traffic. He realized the speedometer was constantly hitting 80+ so he was a bit concerned. “Geez I might get a speeding ticket”, he thought. But after a while, he just got used to the speed, he was going with the flow and sometimes hitting even 90 miles/hr. "Wow this is great, I might get to Florida ahead of schedule." so he thought...
Unfortunately he got pulled over. He as shocked and upset: "Why me? This cop has nothing better to do? Is it because I am driving a Porsche?...". Sitting on the shoulder of the highway just off one the exit ramps, he told the cop: “Officer， I was driving above the speed limit once a while but I was merely keeping up with the traffic...blah blah...". The officer kept writing his ticket and my friend became agitated. He felt it was so unfair. His raised his voice and complained, pointing to the cars flew by them on the highway: "Look, look, look, all these cars are speeding. I was merely keeping up with the traffic and not paying too much attention to the speed limit. Why am I the only one got pulled over? It is so so unfair! Why only me?! Why don't you go and catch them all??..."
”Why don't you shut up? You know I can't catch them all. That's why I've gotten you!"
这是最简单的conflicts of interests的问题。
因为到底你有没有泄露不该泄露的信息，谁知道？查也很难查。
只有看有没有收钱。
税务方面能起诉，金额肯定很大，不可能是一千，2千美元的旅行补助。
你怎么知道是国外帐户？
很可能是中国汇款到美国账户的钱没有申报。查biden儿子的税，也是查汇给他钱没有申报。
哈佛那个白人化学教授也是被抓收到的中国汇款，不是存在中国的钱。
你没看起诉书吗？起诉的就是海外账户没有申报，而且根本不是你猜想的数额巨大。打回去重看
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/mit-professor-arrested-and-charged-grant-fraud
Wire fraud 明白么？就是这边有account 收钱。
起诉最重的是这一条。这条最高是判20年。税上问题都是毛毛雨。
The charge of wire fraud provides for a sentence of up to 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000. The charge of making false statements provides for a sentence of up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The charge of failing to file an FBAR provides for a sentence of up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000.
真够搞笑的。
人家有海外金融资产的为啥不报？报了也不用交税，将来还能合法的拿回来。
看样子你是真的不明白，全凭自己在猜啊。这里的Wire fraud指的是陈刚收南方科大的经费没有向DOE报备，也就是饶毅公开信里提的项目，也就是媒体大肆渲染的几千万那件事。要是还不懂，那就找个详细的英文报道和起诉书结合一起看哈。
说的那么轻松，收几千万，用什么账户？个人账户，自己开个公司账户？
你老公用你不知道的银行账户收了外面女人几千块，你不闹么？给你说忘了通知你，行么？
你真是啥都没看，就跑上来跟人掐啊。是MIT收的钱啊，俩学校代表兴高采烈签的合同，fund MIT10多个教授。你能不能多做点功课，饶毅说了那么多，你好歹搜搜他说的是不是真的啊。
如果MIT收錢讓這個系主任背鍋，那MIT確實不厚道了。 饒毅因此罵老川也是可笑，中共偷技術彎道超車的原罪最後影響了一鍋和中共牽連的。
那些代购99%都没报税吧？而且数额巨大，抓谁了？
为什么？？
两句中文就说完的事，真辛苦你码这么多英文
谁拦着你去举报那些代购了吗? 实际上这种两头吃的华裔科学家对美国利益的损害比代购大多了。当然了, 国内不这么看, 五毛不这么看。
Haha, I am not good at typing Chinese. Maybe you can retell the same story in Chinese with two sentences so that I can learn from you?
不管银子多少，超过一万刀就得申报。不过陈的银子应该是大大的： “通过调查微信记录，还发现陈刚是“武汉市合作伙伴杰出人才”，加入了武汉“3551光谷人才计划”，获得了1000万元人民币的安置补偿金及200万元人民币的一次性现金奖励。”
支持！学术水平和人品是两码事儿。
这么好，优秀市民怎么选的?其实网上发帖没用，陈自己也知道怎么一回事，所以大家关心的帮着找好律师吧。
还有，你们到底认为为什么china要资助一个美国学校的全职教授。
你们真认为党国是在为世界学术做贡献么？
不说还不知道，资助是上千万美元。
就靠你举报了 最近大撒币 拜登政府手头有点紧啊 先代美国人民感激您了
1万刀打发叫花子, 傻子才信1万刀没报税。
身正不怕影斜。
“通过调查陈刚的微信记录、电子邮件和手机发现，除“评审专家”外，陈刚还担任了： 1、南方科技大学大学的顾问，在得到美国联邦机构大约1900万美元的联邦拨款和奖励同时，还获得了南方科技大学的1900万美元。 2、中关村发展集团（这是一家国企）的“战略科学家”。 3、重庆第二外国语学校的顾问。这是一所由“中国地方政府官员管理的国有学校”，陈刚作为学校顾问“推荐学生进入美国顶尖大学”，并收取了顾问费。 4，中国政府的“海外专家”顾问，为“中国的外交政策提供建议和咨询，推荐他人加入中国人才计划”。 5，国家留学基金委的顾问。留学基金委的项目资金主要来自中国政府。 6，陈刚是“武汉市合作伙伴杰出人才”，加入了武汉“3551光谷人才计划”，获得了1000万元人民币的安置补偿金及200万元人民币的一次性现金奖励。”
很多时候不是见钱眼开。有名的华人有些真的特别无奈，不想惹事情偏偏事情喜欢来找你。比如中领馆找到你让你好好考虑某个项目合作，你敢拒绝吗？家里不是有这么多亲戚还在国内，连累了怎么办。真是没有活路
不管是不是单纯的因为这个抓的，请问偷税漏税金额大的话，抓的应不应该？
想开一些，这次还算找了个税的由头。要是真把Fed逼急了起诉儿童色情或者上班左脚先进门就更不好看了。
明白。你们住法拉盛的人确实不理解什么是conflict of interest.
good analogy.
好多钱…
不太可能。arrest warrant不是随便发的，通常已经掌握了确凿证据。
你信吗？且不说人家已经入籍了。如果个人好处给的不够多，你能请动人家回去“合作”？
这个和人出轨了，都是小三太厉害，一样的辩解思路。
哈哈哈 放心 估计你一辈子也爬不到需要美国政府诬陷的那个级别
的确是这样，申请逮铺令必须有充足的证据.
看来那个只交750的，我们的确是冤枉他了
超速被警察抓了上庭辩解，说很多人超速你们怎么不抓，这都不是辩护理由呀，法官都会直接判罚款的。
是的
re这个，存粹是写给国内思维的人看的。MIT的校长又不在政府和司法权力圈，这个校长又不是有权力逮捕程刚的人任命的，也不可能被这些人提拔到更高的职位，这位校长反对或者支持这个起诉都不需要所谓的“脊梁”。只有权力圈的人去反抗更高的权力才用得上“脊梁”这个词。
想起几年前，被迫害的那位水利女专家了。 陈霞芬。 无罪释放，但是好端端的联邦zf铁饭碗，丢了。 这位女专家是被她国内的侄子坑了。 哦不，还不是她侄子，是她侄子的岳父！ 烂亲戚出了点纠纷。 陈女士有个大学同学官拜国内水利部副部长。 她为了这个烂亲戚，去找老同学说情。 为了表示诚意，给讲解了一些水利知识。 以泄密罪被抓捕了。 几个月以后因证据不足放了，因为她说的也不是啥秘密，但是联邦zf工作还是丢了。 纽约时报贴过大字报，声讨这个种族歧视事件。 链接：https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/business/accused-of-spying-for-china-until-she-wasnt.html
这个如果没有自己搂钱那个1700多万的研究经费确实是比较冤，但是现在强国已经是美国的敌对国了，基本算collateral damage，雇个好律师认了应该就是个逃税的轻罪，FBI明显在针对和国内合作的查＝在查，就是杀鸡给猴看让以后人都不敢了。现在关系差到这样能咋办呢要赖去赖一尊吧，二任以来把能得罪的基本得罪了个遍。
饶毅这个盗窃头子，偷了人家东西，还有脸出来写信，抗议人家不让你偷了。也就是会拿种族歧视做文章。要是被歧视了，这位陈刚博士还能动不动申请到十几个Mil的funding。ccp科学家都不要脸到这样啦
Usa 任何人都会doubt：中国给1700万美元，中国想要得到什么？不会是给美国大学扶贫吧？
至于中国得到了什么，很难查出来，所以都是查税。
既然有wire fraud，肯定钱就打到跟chen个人有关的账户。
不可能钱打到mit 某个系的银行账户或者mit的，会告chen个人的wire fraud。
这是最简单的logic，不知道为啥这里人想不通。