Thread by @Dereklowe

I recommend this thread on the Lieber case and conviction - several interesting details. My own thoughts are in the next few tweets (1/10)

https://twitter.com/antonioregalado/status/1473427128960139276

You can come at this story from several directions. One is the position of US universities as a destination for hard-working and talented people from around the world. This is a huge benefit for the country, and if we mess that up we are idiots. (2/10)

But (a 2nd angle) China is in its own category (size, economy, and more). The Chinese government aggressively seeks out economic and technological advantage, and they definitely use (or try to use) students and post-docs for this. (3/10)

Well, nation-states do this sort of thing. But that doesn’t mean that the US should ignore it or make it easier. China doesn’t make it easy to learn what they’re doing, but the far more open US system is an attraction that comes with its own difficulties. (4/10)

Now, the government pursued no harder-to-prove espionage charges in the Lieber case. They frankly didn’t have to bother, because Prof. Lieber made it very easy for the prosecution to turn him into an example anyway. (5/10)

That’s the third angle on this story. Through some combination of carelessness, cluelessness, and hubris, Lieber violated the law, lied about that, and then admitted both of these to the FBI on video. There’s no getting around any of that. (6/10)

But the laws he violated are about finance and disclosure. It is not illegal to take money from to be part of the Chinese “Thousand Talents” program, but it is illegal to conceal that from US government granting agencies, and to bring in undeclared packages of cash. (7/10)

The US government got everything they wanted out of this case in the easiest way possible. That’s why they made such a big deal out of the arrest and prosecution. It was a perfect opportunity. (8/10)

It’s hard for me to make this into a big stand for academic freedom when this case involves such foolish, blatant wrongdoing. Other “Thousand Talents” cases might well cross into that territory, but this might make that less likely to happen. The message has been sent. (9/10)

The openness of our academic research system, the good that it does us, the opportunities it presents for a government like China’s, and our own desire to protect some national assets without ruining other ones are still in conflict. How can they not be?(10/10)