Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
News

In a Boston Court, a Superstar of Science Falls To Earth (nytimes.com) 97

A jury found the Harvard chemist Charles Lieber guilty of lying to the federal government about his participation in China's Thousand Talents recruitment program. From a report: Charles Lieber, one of the country's top research chemists, sat miserably in a chair at the Harvard Police Department, trying to explain to two F.B.I. agents why he had agreed to partner with a lesser-known Chinese university in a relationship that had soured and landed him in trouble with the U.S. government. The university had money to spend -- "that's one of the things China uses to try to seduce people," Dr. Lieber said in the interrogation, clips of which were shown in court. But money wasn't the reason, he said. By training young scientists in the use of technology he had pioneered, he hoped to burnish his credentials with the committee that decides the ultimate scientific honor.

"This is embarrassing," he said. "Every scientist wants to win a Nobel Prize." On Tuesday, after deliberating for two hours and 45 minutes, a federal jury found Dr. Lieber guilty of two counts of making false statements to the U.S. government about whether he participated in Thousand Talents Plan, a program designed by the Chinese government to attract foreign-educated scientists to China. They also found him guilty of failing to declare income earned in China and failing to report a Chinese bank account.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In a Boston Court, a Superstar of Science Falls To Earth

Comments Filter:
  • by fermion ( 181285 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2021 @01:54PM (#62106481) Homepage Journal
    Simple tax fraud simple failure to declare. And Harvard has some oversight issues. If anything, it remind geeks to work on contract to not hide income.
    • Well, he is a scientist and we do have a problem with espionage and technology "leakage" from all sides, not just China. It's just that China is very overt about it.

      • by znrt ( 2424692 )

        do we?

        any specific and concrete example of harm produced because of such "technology leakages"?

    • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2021 @02:12PM (#62106569)

      Simple tax fraud simple failure to declare.

      There is nothing simple at all about accepting money from foreign countries and trying to hide it.

      The problem with science is that it is currently riddled with money and support from directions you have no idea. It's not just China doing this, but ideological foundations of all kinds that are altering what science actually gets reported, or funded.

      This is just the tip of a very deep iceberg and if you care about science at all, about real objective science, then you should care about this.

    • by DesScorp ( 410532 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2021 @02:25PM (#62106607) Journal

      Simple tax fraud simple failure to declare.

      How can you say this has nothing to do with science when the Chinese campaign he was working for is specifically targeting scientists. Not artists, accounts, musicians, etc. Scientists. From the story summary: " a program designed by the Chinese government to attract foreign-educated scientists to China"

      • by Immerman ( 2627577 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2021 @03:09PM (#62106785)

        Because it sounds like the story actually has nothing to do with his participation in that program.

        It's about him committing tax fraud and lying to the government about participating in the program, presumably so that he'd be allowed to work on something that was considered too sensitive to include people who might have a conflict of interest. (There is a HUGE amount of university research that falls under that umbrella)

        It doesn't matter if you're a scientist, an accountant, or a janitor, getting caught committing tax fraud and lying on a government background check is not going to end well for you.

        • Note that it does matter if you are a politician or lobbyist. They don't seem to be subject to the same rules regarding foreign influence as someone that only makes a professor's salary
        • Because it sounds like the story actually has nothing to do with his participation in that program.

          Of course, in the same way that Al Capone's conviction for tax evasion had nothing to do with his participation in organized crime.

          • Because it sounds like the story actually has nothing to do with his participation in that program.

            Of course, in the same way that Al Capone's conviction for tax evasion had nothing to do with his participation in organized crime.

            This. Dude had money put in his bank account, and came back with a briefcase of cash.

            FTA: "He went on to offer detail about his financial arrangements with the Wuhan university: A portion of his salary was deposited in a Chinese bank account and the remainder — an amount he estimated as between $50,000 and $100,000 — was paid in $100 bills, which he carried home in his luggage.

            Why, sounds like bribery given and accepted.

            The bullshit part is he and his lawyers are trying to make it sound l

    • No, not a brain fart, but an extremely weak FP. Shallow. And critical, but not constructive ior thoughtful criticism. I can't say I welcome criticism, but sometimes I learn something from it ior it helps me refine ior extend my thinking on a topic. Your comment does NOTHING like that.

      What I'm looking for, but will almost certainly not find on today's insight would be some insight into how this formerly eminent scientist got suckered. I'm quite confident that he is a smart guy and a legitimate expert, but he

      • by fermion ( 181285 )
        No one got suckered. Scientists need money to do research. They can either get it from industry, in which case their research is tainted, a la the cigarettes manufactures studies, or the can get it from public sources. Real rea searches donâ(TM)t care where or who is doing good science. I worked with Algeria, French,Russian, Iranian, Chinese, Japanese, Indian researchers in US labs. Many of my friends worked in Western European labs until all the damage done by Reagan was rectified and serious research
        • No one got suckered. Scientists need money to do research. They can either get it from industry, in which case their research is tainted, a la the cigarettes manufactures studies, or the can get it from public sources.

          While a cool story, scientists do not travel on planes with a 100K in hundred dollar bills, and don't have money put in their personal accounts?

          There is a detailed and highly defined process for getting research money, and never does it involve suitcases of cash and money deposited in the scientist's personal bank account. Proposals are written and reviewed and submitted. Then if accepted, and clearing things like ITAR, checks are cut to the university that the researcher is working for. And all is heav

          • If he's like about 99% of the scientists I know his life skills are at about the level of a seven-year-old, so he probably didn't see any problem until it was too late. Admittedly this is his defence lawyer speaking but:

            âoeIsnâ(TM)t it troubling that nobody in this courtroom has explained what the Thousand Talents Plan is and who is in it?â he said. âoeIsnâ(TM)t it troubling that Dr. Lieberâ(TM)s work was all public, was for the benefit of the world, yet he is facing criminal charges for it?â He added, âoeNo villains, no victims, no one got robbed, no one got rich, but over a few seconds of conversation â" Special Agent Mousseau called it a blip on the radar â" the worldâ(TM)s greatest nanoscientist is facing multiple felonies.â

            A scientist looking for funding made a bit of a mess of getting the funding and now he's being crucified for it. If he'd simply lied in his grant application to the NSF or DARPA like many other researchers do, not only would nothing have happened but he'd have been handed millions in resea

            • If he's like about 99% of the scientists I know his life skills are at about the level of a seven-year-old, so he probably didn't see any problem until it was too late. Admittedly this is his defence lawyer speaking but:

              âoeIsnâ(TM)t it troubling that nobody in this courtroom has explained what the Thousand Talents Plan is and who is in it?â he said. âoeIsnâ(TM)t it troubling that Dr. Lieberâ(TM)s work was all public, was for the benefit of the world, yet he is facing criminal charges for it?â He added, âoeNo villains, no victims, no one got robbed, no one got rich, but over a few seconds of conversation â" Special Agent Mousseau called it a blip on the radar â" the worldâ(TM)s greatest nanoscientist is facing multiple felonies.â

              Although I would be amazed if he wasn't given a counterintelligence briefing. If Harvard doesn't do that, they need to start.

              I know what you mean about the life skills. One of the simplest ways used to get intel out of the geeks is to praise their work. It tends to open their yaps and they don't stop talking. I even made note of this during my career. Once you express interest, they are off to the races.

              A scientist looking for funding made a bit of a mess of getting the funding and now he's being crucified for it.

              Because it was super shady. If my wife suddenly came home from a foreign trip with 100K in cash, and o

      • What I'm looking for, but will almost certainly not find on today's insight would be some insight into how this formerly eminent scientist got suckered.

        He was offered a bribe, and he accepted. He did have money placed in his bank account, and came back from China with cash money in his luggage.

        Insight? The simple one is they found his price. A more humanitarian insight might be he was trying to set of a fund for his wife - he is suffering from cancer. I don't know the timeline.

        But scientists are human and they will occasionally do what other people might do.

        Another possibility is that he didn't conform to their wishes - don't know - but there is anot

        • by shanen ( 462549 )

          I'm not denying that those details are part of the story, but I doubt that it's the entire thing. What went before is kind of important. Once the fish is properly hooked, it doesn't matter too much. But I still wager his "case officer" would have tried to keep him safe and useful as long as possible. Heck, the Chinese surely would have offered tax accounting help, too.

          Let me throw out another angle. Maybe the first dangle was a way to help one of his former students? I'm not claiming to be a great teacher,

    • Simple tax fraud simple failure to declare. And Harvard has some oversight issues. If anything, it remind geeks to work on contract to not hide income.

      And not hide foreign bank accounts. File your FBAR. It takes a few minutes, and failure to do so just sets you up for extra charges and penalties if things ever get pear shaped.

    • And not to work with or be seduced by a foreign power that throws money at foreign scientists and technologies in either a way to steal those ideas via espionage or willingly given via contractual obligation. It isn't just simple tax fraud. You're looking at it from a very narrow point of view.

  • by GlobalEcho ( 26240 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2021 @02:02PM (#62106527)

    I have known a few Nobelists in my day (3 of them pretty well, a couple others less closely) and they are indeed very driven people. But they are not so much driven by the desire to win that prize. They are far wiser than Lieber.

    One of the interesting comments in the NYT article about him was on how badly he treats his grad students and postdocs, another major difference between him and the true giants of their fields. According to the commenter, he has had (almost exclusively) mainland Chinese folks in this role, which the commenter attributes to their willingness to suffer work conditions rejected by many others.

    On that topic, let me just say that I have taught quite a few mainland Chinese grad students over the years, and they seem less and less of that unquestioning culture. To me, it's great, as I want real independent thinkers in my class. Folks who I hope will either stay here and do great things, or go back to China to do great things, and tell their friends that America was a pretty awesome place to spend a few years. Even if the censors keep them from saying that online.

    • attributes to their willingness to suffer work conditions rejected by many others

      But now we know the truth; those are the people he was paid to support!

    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      To me [questioning things is] great, as I want real independent thinkers in my class.

      In general kissing up works in the work-world. I've seen it many times. Maybe you are the exception as far as bosses go, but those who STFU are often rewarded over "reality-friendly" employees.

      • by hey! ( 33014 )

        In general kissing up works in the work-world. I've seen it many times.

        Virtue, Aristotle teaches us, lies in moderation. Willingness to do a little well-timed and judicious ego-stroking is not inherently a vice; continually and unthinkingly throwing uncomfortable truths in people's faces is certainly not a virtue.

        Context, quantity, and quality make a difference in ego-stroking. If you hide a problem from a coworker to appease his ego, you undermine him. If you continually flatter people, particularly with transparent lies, they will see you as untrustworthy. But it doesn'

        • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          > If you hide a problem from a coworker to appease his ego, you undermine him.

          There are ways to indirectly deliver unwelcomed news, but it's not an easy art, especially for we Asperger types. And bad news is often frowned upon no matter how delivered. Bad news gets associated with the messenger due to basic Pavlov-like conditioning: X is often around when Y happens (Y being bad news), thus the listener unconsciously wishes to avoid X. Reality isn't popular with humans.

          > If you continually flatter peo

        • Virtue, Aristotle teaches us, lies in moderation.

          Mentioning Aristotle now always makes me think of these two exchanges in The Good Place [wikipedia.org].

          From season1, episode 3, "Tahani Al-Jamil":

          Chidi Anagonye: [in front of blackboard showing list of Greek philosophers]
          So Aristotle was Plato's student. And Aristotle believes that your character is voluntary, because it's just the result of your actions, which are under your control. For example, right now, you have made the insane choice to ignore the person who is literally trying to save you from eternal damnation.

          Eleanor Shellstrop: No, yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm listening. Uh, I just... are we sure we should be paying attention to these guys? It's like, who died and left Aristotle in charge of ethics?

          Chidi Anagonye: [pointing to blackboard] Plato!

          And season 3, episode 1/2, "Everything Is Bonzer!" [wikipedia.org]:

          Chidi Anagonye: So for Aristotle, virtue is practical. Goodness isn't something that a person just inherently has. It's something that she achieves through her actions. Questions?

          Eleanor Shellstrop: Uh, yeah, a few. I wrote down "what?" "huh?" And then this doodle of a burrito because when I first read Aristotle, I thought it was pronounced like Chipotle. [Has a sudden thought] Wait a minute, is it "Chip-o-tottle"?

          • by hey! ( 33014 )

            I love that show. One of the most intelligent things ever put on TV.

            • I love that show. One of the most intelligent things ever put on TV.

              I have the entire series on DVD. It's nice 'cause there are a few extra snippets that were cut to fit into the network time slot, and you can stop and check all the Easter eggs -- like the corner street sign in Australia (season 3) in front of the Nemo Cafe that says: “THISISA St” and “THISISNOTA St.” (referring to the "That's not a knife" / "This is a knife" scene in the movie Crocodile Dundee) -- Google "the good place easter eggs".

              I've watched the series several times through a

    • A sample of 3 is good enough for you from a pool of around 1000? By the way I have known how a few Nobel laureates treat their grad students too. One example of many: A laureate made a grad student cry in front of an audience during his presentation (granted, it was because he made a blunder.) The student mentioned FRET, and then made a very common mistake regarding the mechanism of how FRET works. Oh boy, that was too much and this professor totally berated and humiliated him. I feel like it could have bee

      • A sample of 3 is good enough for you from a pool of around 1000?

        That's a touch unfair, I never generalized to more than the ones I know.

        By the way I have known how a few Nobel laureates treat their grad students too. One example of many: A laureate made a grad student cry in front of an audience during his presentation...

        Sounds like Medicine...I haven't known any of those folks. But based on this story, perhaps I am none the poorer for it.

    • by shanen ( 462549 )

      Too bad that wasn't the FP. Much more thoughtful.

      Just noting that my last class had a lot of Chinese grad students in it. Also worth noting they included most of the top students. I should have taken the opportunity to learn more about their political views, but it was a computer science course and I scrupulously steered clear, though I remain curious.

      I think it was The Big Nine by Amy Webb where I read quite a bit about the Chinese government program to recruit in the States. Or it might have been anothe

    • by pz ( 113803 )

      I have known a few Nobelists in my day (3 of them pretty well, a couple others less closely) and they are indeed very driven people. But they are not so much driven by the desire to win that prize. They are far wiser than Lieber.

      I've been fortunate enough to have known a handful as well, and, in addition, people who wanted the prize, but didn't get it despite sometimes overt campaigns. The first group were, each of them, humble. Not in in the sense that they might say, "aw shucks," but in the sense that success had brought them comfort and confidence in being who they were. They didn't need to trumpet their accomplishments; the world had told them they had done great work. None, that I recall, had their medal on display in thei

  • I hope to God they keep digging and find some more of these people buried in the universities.

    Foreign money from dictatorships should have no place in institutions that train our future leaders* of science, industry, and government.

    *or for that matter, not just leaders but also the vast multitudes of people whose names you'll never hear but whose years of quite dignity of gainful employment and occasional civic engagement is the bedrock upon which our liberal democracy has always stood.

  • by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2021 @02:13PM (#62106573)
    Its understood that scientists collaborate worldwide. Even at the height of the cold war, lots of scientists on both sides said “screw my government’s isolationism, science is for eveyone, I’m gonna communicate and collaborate with the US/USSR”. Know what happened? The governments grumbled but let it happen. The governments caved, because both sides wanted better science.

    Lieber didnt have to hide it. He could have simply declared “I’m in the thousand points program because I’m collaborating with Chinese scientists, deal with it” and the US would tapped his phone, monitored him, but otherwise let him go about his business. Instead, he’s in a much worse situation. What a shame. Poor choice.
    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      > Lieber didnt have to hide it.

      Some scientists believe they are being harassed [aip.org], even for "open" science topics. In this hyper-politicized nation, it's hard to say which collaboration will result in pressure and questioning by authorities. One President may be okay with something and the next not.

      • You're justifying. He didn't have to hide it, so why did he? Note he's not guilty for participating in the program, he's guilty of lying about it.

        It suggests much about his personal ethics. He clearly thought he was going to get in trouble, so he chose to lie. He knew he had this bank account, he knew he participated in the program, and he lied. That shows he thought he was doing something that was wrong and made decisions based on that. That suggests pathological reasons.

      • Yup. Let me put this as politely as I possibly can: if you want to be a scientist, you gotta have the guts to stand up for science in the face of people who dont want you to get your science on. If a little bit of government scrutiny or public hostility is going to bruise your sensitive skin, youre not cut out to be at the edge of human knowledge.

        With regards to the state departments China initiative: overall, its jusified. Its well known that China is using our university system for espionage purposes
    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      There are scientists who are scientists, and there are scientists who are politicians. The former are the kind who say "screw idiot governments" and that's a very old tradition. Some of the only things to pass fairly freely through Napoleon's blockade of England were scientists and their letters.

      The latter are the ones who want to be important. You can get to be important by accident by doing good science and having principles, but most of the deans, science advisors, directors etc. of the world did it by n

    • The difference between China and USSR is that USSR was motivated by ideology and ego, while China is motivated by racism. The latter is a lot more powerful, as the left keeps telling us.

  • in 2013, in Moscow. What kind of money are we talking about here with the chemists? Trump got a $10 million check in Moscow in Nov, 2013 from a Russian named Aras Agalarov. Agalarov was known as âoePutinâ(TM)s Builder.â He had accumulated a $1 billion- plus real estate fortune in part by catering to Russia's elite.
  • The real problem with academia is arrogance, hubris and yes a big issue with ethics and morals.
  • You can argue which box it "goes in" / "should have gone in" all day. The odds of a harsh sentence for "wrong box" / "wrong interpretation of the rules" are are crazy low. Prosecutors can't be bothered.*

    *does not apply to selling balls of Pu239 in certain Middle Eastern countries. ;)

    (Side note. With 80,000 pages of spaghetti tax code, a black and white interpretation often isn't there. Appeal the low level rulings and eventually you will hit someone who will only press on with cases the IRS can clearly wi

  • a federal jury found Dr. Lieber guilty of two counts of making false statements to the U.S. government about whether he participated in Thousand Talents Plan

    tax evasion is one thing, but i fail to understand how it is a government's business to ask a citizen about his/her involvement in scientific programs abroad in the first place. i thought that would be "private business" in the "land of the free", but it seems the decadence is sowing alarming levels of paranoia already ...

    • The reason the US government did it is because they accuse China of stealing technology from the US this way (specifically military technology, like stealth planes).

      It looks like the reason he is going to jail is the same reason Martha Stewart went to jail: not for doing something wrong, but because she talked to the police.

  • Charles Lieber, one of the country's top research chemists, sat miserably in a chair at the Harvard Police Department, trying to explain to two F.B.I. agents why

    That was his mistake, don't talk to the police. Especially the FBI [youtube.com].

  • ...trying to explain to two F.B.I. agents why...

    Science smart, legally ignorant. Never talk to police or agents. He confessed to crimes because he didn't know rule number one: don't talk to the police.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      ...trying to explain to two F.B.I. agents why...

      Science smart, legally ignorant. Never talk to police or agents. He confessed to crimes because he didn't know rule number one: don't talk to the police.

      Yeah, the record of $50,000/month completely unreported income landing in his bank account wouldn't be a problem at all. /s

      • Do your research. You may still be found guilty in the end, but talking to the police makes that likelihood far higher (especially if you're NOT guilty). You are removing defense options every time you tell the police something, even if they already know it. You will easily convict yourself before ever getting that first, crucial meeting with your defense attorney. At that point, all he's good for is witnessing your sentencing.

        YouTube has LOTS of videos by attorneys to teach you how to handle the police. Th

  • We have far too many Americans that have lost their patriotism, and are far more enamored with our allmighty dollar.
    He needs a good 10-20 years in prison.
    • If I were you, I'd be more concerned with the Americans who planned and conducted an attempt to overthrow your government last January and turn your country into a fascist dictatorship. Those people need life in prison without parole.

      • What is wrong with being concerned about both?
        JUst because we have a traitor ( for Russia) that was our president and pushed for insursection by other Americans,
        how does that justify another American's treason/perjury for China?
  • More info ... (Score:4, Informative)

    by kbahey ( 102895 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2021 @04:08PM (#62107075) Homepage

    It is more than tax evasion, thought this is what they got him for.

    The BBC [bbc.com] has a bit more info.

    Prosecutors in Boston said Lieber knowingly hid his involvement in China's "Thousand Talents Plan", which aims to attract foreign research specialists. It has been flagged by the US as a security concern in the past.

    ...

    Participation in the programme is not a crime. However prosecutors said Lieber had lied to authorities about his participation, his affiliation with the university in Wuhan, and failed to declare income earned in China.

  • Good illustration of the saying that when any investigative agency with police powers shows up to "ask you a few questions" you give them the phone number of your lawyer and stop talking.

  • If you lie to Federal authorities it is a serious offense with heavy penalties. Yet if they lie to you, well, that just happens sometimes; get used to it.

  • Let's see if the Nobel Prize folks want to give a prize to a traitor in jail.

The best things in life go on sale sooner or later.

Working...