Thread by @adrianzenz

THREAD: @AucklandUni complaint letter re @Anne_MarieBrady publication on NZ academic ties that could benefit China military research, denying allegations re AU Prof. Gao Wei. The letter's denials are factually incorrect, raising serious questions.
drive.google.com/drive/u/0/fold…

Some background on this:
stuff.co.nz/national/12240…

And Brady's publication against which the complaint is directed:
wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/…

My look into Brady's allegations re Massey Uni involvement in Xinjiang:
adrianzenz.medium.com/letter-to-cant…

AU's complaint states that Gao Wei never researched "quantum computing".

But Brady doesn't allege that. She alleges that Gao is involved in a military-related quantum computing project at China's University of Defense Technology (NUDT). Which he is.

AU denies this: Gao "never conducted military research". But Brady's sources clearly prove her claim:

a) Gao was appointed distinguished NUDT researcher in 2014.
archive.is/eNWrM

b) A 2015 NUDT article titled "NUDT establishes PLA's first...center for quantum information" highlights Gao as an especially prestigious of 40 new recruitees for this center. These efforts have "spawned major original research results".
archive.is/F6Jsa

That source is crystal clear about the explicitly military purpose of the center, its research, and Gao being one of two highlighted especially important recruitees for it.

AU's letter also argues that Gao's appointment at NUDT is merely honorary.

That is incorrect. The sources cited above state that Gao was "formally recruited" (e.g. 正式聘请), and distinguished professorships (特聘教授) are not typically merely honorary. The second source makes the impact of the involvement of Gao and others quite clear.

Brady alleges that Gao uses research relationships and skills learned in New Zealand to further Chinese research with military applications. From the cited sources, that appears to be the case.

AU's complaint gives no evidence at all to the contrary, besides plain denial.

AU's letter states that Gao merely has research collaborations that enhance "global scientific research".

But Brady's sources clearly state that he is a key part of a center that researches quantum computing explicitly for military purposes.

Gao is described by the NUDT military / PLA center on quantum computing as an "international high-end talent in the field of quantum information research".

No matter what one thinks of the wider subject at hand here, or how one should view the wider issue:
AU's denial is plainly misleading and manifestly false. Which is, frankly, very concerning, given that Brady is put on the defense and being investigated as a result.

AU's letter further says that Gao participated in a "thousand talent" event in 2017, but has "never been part of [that] programme."

But Brady didn't allege that, but rather that Gao has been involved in attracting talent to Chinese research with potential military application.

That is the second straw man argument made in the AU complaint letter.

Also, in 2018, Gao was named "chief scientist" of the Fuhai - New Zealand Talent Station, a recruitment platform to attract talent in various strategic high-tech sectors.
archive.is/9m8fD

Some general points on all this:

Brady's research pioneers a new, sensitive field w/ ethical challenges. The conflict between securing western national security and negatively implicating Chinese academics is a tough tension. False allegations are damaging to reputation.

But inaction on this matter is also inacceptable and dangerous. The stakes are high, some tensions perhaps irreconcilable.

This problem is of course created in the first place by the predatory behaviors of the CCP, who cares more about its interests than about its own people.

This is a tricky new field of research, in part pioneered by Brady, that might require some oversight and regulation, standards and protective mechanisms both for the likes of Brady and the likes of Gao Wei.

But this field of research cannot and must not be suppressed.

The way this is being handled by @UCNZ is extremely problematic, and complaint letters like the one from @AucklandUni are frankly deceitful.

One way might be to require very high standards, incl. peer review, prior to publications that implicate individuals. But there is also a need to investigate Beijing's actions in real time. As e.g. with the Xinjiang atrocity. Again, this is an issue that the CCP itself created.

There are highly capable other researchers in this general emerging field, incl. @MattSchrader_DC @PLMattis @BethanyAllenEbr @RollandNadege @MareikeOhlberg @dktatlow etc. Some of them have been charged with pursuing improper methodologies.

Perhaps this field needs some serious expansion, funding, publications on baseline methodologies, agreements on procedures and quality controls, mutual support and supervision, etc. /END

Pings to @ehundman and @donaldcclarke

Important addendum: Brady's paper is not a regular academic publication but a Parliamentary submission. The proper response to any alternative views in a parliamentary submission in NZ is another submission that provides factual evidence countering the allegations.