
Chinese Scientist Accused of Smuggling Samples, Amid Crackdown on Research Theft - jonas21
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/us/chinese-scientist-cancer-research-investigation.html
======
avocado4
[https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/12/30/peoples-republic-
of-...](https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/12/30/peoples-republic-of-china-may-
be-behind-theft-of-bio-samples-by-harvard-sponsored-chinese-student-feds-say/)

> The feds say they believe the Chinese government may be behind the theft of
> biological research specimens from a Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
> lab involving a Harvard University-sponsored Chinese student.

------
yanilkr
Can someone with proper background explain what’s important about these cancer
cells? How difficult would it be to replicate them?

~~~
knzhou
How this usually works is that samples are relevant to specific experiments.
For example, maybe you're testing how some particular genetic modification
affects how cancer cells behave in response to some drug, or whatever. These
vials of cells would be what you get halfway through such an experiment, after
you've treated the cells but before you've had a chance to analyze them.
Postdocs and studentships often end midway through projects like this. The raw
value of the materials is low, and it might take a postdoc days to weeks to
reproduce them, depending on complexity. There is also an extremely high
chance that the cells are completely worthless, i.e. that the treatment was
botched or inconclusive. If the student hadn't taken the vials, the project
might well have been abandoned, due to lack of manpower.

With that background, the morality of "smuggling" these cells is a bit of a
gray area. On one hand, they're just incomplete work that the student wants to
finish elsewhere. Keeping them is just like me keeping my notebooks when I
move, even if I haven't finished solving the equations therein. On the other
hand, if the project is finished elsewhere, credit won't properly flow to the
affiliation where the work was started. In theoretical physics, we really
don't care about this (I just finished a project where 2 members changed
affiliation midway through), but in biology there's the cost of facilities,
and the local expertise that gets you the raw materials.

So there is an issue here, but I certainly don't think it's worth the hysteria
that will unfold in this comments section. I think the real issue is that a
lot of people on this site are disgusted at the idea of Chinese people
learning science. But to us scientists, the spread of knowledge is a virtue.
After all, the end goal of this student would have been to publish in a
journal -- which people from any country can access.

~~~
roberson87
I can surmise your post in 2 points:

1\. The stolen material by these Chinese scientists were worthless and akin to
a student taking home a notebook after a lecture. 2\. The real issue is here
is not of the rampant theft of intellectual property by rogue Chinese
scientists, but that Westerners are disgusted by the mere thought of Chinese
people learning science.

I didn't need to learn your name ('Zhou') to see that you are another CCP
loyalist. And honestly I am quite concerned that a visiting Chinese scientist
like yourself holds sympathetic views of these intellectual theft crimes by
your countrymen.....

~~~
dang
Slurs like this aren't allowed here.

We've banned this account for that, as well as for doing nationalistic
flamewar and ignoring our request to stop.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
jxramos
I'd be interested for someone to start or point out a list of IP thefts in
some timeline table in Wikipedia much like the list of soviet defectors
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_and_Eastern_Blo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_and_Eastern_Bloc_defectors)

~~~
knzhou
The line between IP theft and literally just learning things gets very blurred
in the sciences. Under some people's vague standards, I commit IP theft every
time I take notes in a lecture, or apply knowledge I've learned elsewhere. Am
I not supposed to use calculus outside of the United States if I learned it
while living here?

~~~
sandworm101
>> Am I not supposed to use calculus outside of the United States if I learned
it while living here?

Exactly. Math has in the past been classified as an export-controlled
'munition'. No matter where you learned it, a US citizen could be arrested for
talking about it outside of the US. People were printing it on t-shirts and in
books as a form of free speech protest.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars)

"the encryption technology (techniques as well as equipment and, after
computers became important, crypto software) was included as a Category XIII
item into the United States Munitions List."

And see the Free Speech Flag:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Flag](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Flag)

------
shasheene
The risks of working with Chinese state-owned enterprises are well known. The
risks of working with private companies (large and small) in China are are
also great with CCP "party cells" officially embedded into at least half of
private companies. Less discussed is the China's highly-successful "patriotic
education" campaign implemented in response to the 1989 pro-democracy protests
(the Tiananmen Square massacre). All school children since the mid-1990s have
been indoctrinated from birth with a Chinese Communist Party's highly-
exaggerated historical narrative called the "century of humiliation". This
world view says the US and the European colonial powers held China down
between 1839 to 1949, and that only the CCP's leadership China will regain its
rightful place as global leader. Its false and highly-exaggerated for a number
of reasons (China at its historical peak was never more than a regional power,
never a global leader, and the CCP has done more to hold China's development
back than western colonialism and the war with Imperial Japan).

Since the patriotic education system came into force in the 1990s, generations
of schoolchildren indoctrinated. These students, now adults, have entered the
workforce with the ideology continuing to be reinforced by state-propaganda
and censorship.

This "century of humiliation" mindset is part of what helps justify the
China's strategy of large scale technology theft (theft is a core component of
the Made In China 2025 industrial strategy).

Interestingly enough, the CCP promotes its ethno-nationalist ideology far
beyond its borders via the United Front Work Department to try and influence
everyone, but especially overseas Chinese diaspora communities. It doesn't
matter whether someone was born in China, or live as part of an overseas
diaspora community, or have Chinese ancestral heritage but have lived for
generations in another country, the Chinese Communist Party sees every single
ethnically Chinese people in the world as owing allegiance to it, and wants to
leverage these people to achieve its goals.

Defeating the CCP's ethno-nationalist agenda and highly-exaggerated historical
narratives will be difficult, but understanding it is the key to fighting back
against the widespread theft of advanced technology from developed countries
to China.

EDIT: Why the downvotes? The "patriotic education" campaign, "century of
humiliation" narrative, United Front Work Department and state-led
technological theft are all core methods in the CCP's strategy (leading
situations like the one in the featured article). If you think this comment is
reasonable and meets the guidelines, please view it via the permalink and then
'vouch' it.

~~~
elfexec
> All school children since the mid-1990s have been indoctrinated from birth
> with a Chinese Communist Party's highly-exaggerated historical narrative
> called the "century of humiliation"

I suggest reading about the chinese history under european/american
colonialism. To call it "Highly-exaggerated" is like saying the holocaust was
highly exaggerated. It's absurd and makes it hard to take your comment
seriously.

> and the CCP has done more to hold China's development back than western
> colonialism and the war with Imperial Japan).

That's simply an absurd statement. China, like india, under western
colonialism went from being the largest economy in the world to an
insignificant one. Now, china is the 2nd largest economy (nominal) and largest
economy (PPP).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_\(nominal\))

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_\(PPP\))

> This "century of humiliation" mindset is part of what helps justify the
> China's strategy of large scale technology theft (theft is a core component
> of the Made In China 2025 industrial strategy).

No. IP theft is justified because that's the history of business. US did it in
the 1800s. Japan did it. South Korea did. Israel did it. Everyone does it
until they themselves produce IP worth protecting. It's just the natural cycle
of development. Go read about the history of trying to steal silk, porcelain,
fireworks, etc tech from china. It's simply a natural development.

> Interestingly enough, the CCP promotes its ethno-nationalist ideology far
> beyond its borders via the United Front Work Department to try and influence
> everyone, but especially overseas Chinese diaspora communities.

So does israel, germany, japan, korea, turkey, russia, etc. Not only that we
have ethno-centric alliances ( Five Eyes ).

> Defeating the CCP's ethno-nationalist agenda and highly-exaggerated
> historical narratives will be difficult

It will be difficult because their historical narratives are true.

If you want to see what colonialism did to china, india, etc...

[http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-
content/uploads/20...](http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-
content/uploads/2008/01/percent-world-gdp-15001.jpg)

[http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2008/01/20/share-
of...](http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2008/01/20/share-of-world-gdp)

Before colonialism, china and india accounted for more than 50% of the world's
GDP for millenia. After colonialism, china and india accounted for 5% of the
world GDP.

There certainly are things to worry about when it comes to china, but
outlandish lies aren't going to help anyone.

~~~
yorwba
> China, like india, under western colonialism went from being the largest
> economy in the world to an insignificant one.

That's getting the causality backwards. Western colonialism didn't reduce
China and India to insignificant economies; their insignificance is what
enabled Western powers to colonize them so easily. The reduction to
insignificance already happened earlier, when the West began to industrialize.

Of course the Qing emperors realized that they wouldn't be able to resist
Western armies without owning similar weaponry. Their biggest mistake was
simply buying them. In comparison, Japan suffered similar humiliation,
complete with Western battleships forcibly opening ports for trade. The
deciding difference was that they decided to not only import Western weapons,
but to learn how to make them themselves, industrializing quickly. That was so
successful that halfway through China's "century of humiliation", Japan became
one of the humiliators.

> IP theft is justified because that's the history of business.

Agreed, and the humiliation would have lasted a lot shorter than a century if
the Qing had realized this. Ironically, if they had done so, foreign Manchu
would likely still hold an outsized influence in Chinese politics today.

> their historical narratives are true.

The facts of the narrative can be true while the evaluation and implied causal
relationships can be misleading. For example, the establishment of free-trade
zones for foreign merchants is judged to be humiliating because it was the
consequence of military defeat. But when the CCP later established special
economic zones to boost international trade, that was seen as very much a good
thing.

~~~
elfexec
> That's getting the causality backwards. Western colonialism didn't reduce
> China and India to insignificant economies; their insignificance is what
> enabled Western powers to colonize them so easily.

This is one of the most outlandishly false things I've read. China and india's
economic significance is the reason why western powers wanted to colonize
china and india in the first place. Their economic importance is why europe
first sought out india and china. It's why columbus "sailed the ocean blue".

> The reduction to insignificance already happened earlier, when the West
> began to industrialize.

The colonization of india and china started before western industrialization.
And it was colonizers who prevented india and china from industrializing like
Japan. Funny how colonization ended and china ( and india though more slowly )
started industrializing huh?

> For example, the establishment of free-trade zones for foreign merchants is
> judged to be humiliating because it was the consequence of military defeat.
> But when the CCP later established special economic zones to boost
> international trade, that was seen as very much a good thing.

Because the former was for the benefit of foreign merchants to loot a nation
and the latter was for the benefit of china. Surely, even you can see the
difference of a territory conquered by a foreign power to loot a nation vs a
territory a nation sets up itself for trade?

~~~
sudosysgen
No it didn't. The first opium wars, at the start of the century of
humiliation, began in 1839. Industrialization began in the 1780s. It was
literally heavily armed, iron armored steamships versus middle-ages style
sailboats. The Chinese were completely fucked at every single level
economically compared to Great Britain, and that's why they lost. They
literally didn't stand a chance due to their poor technological level, and
that was pretty much their fault.

Using GDP to measure economical supremacy when the two economies are as wildly
incomparable as industrialized Great Britain and the agrarian Qing Dynasty is
misleading at every single level. Yeah, China could grow hundreds of times
more rice than Great Britain ever could. But Qing China wasn't able to make
machine guns, it wasn't able to make steamships, it wasn't able to make any
industrial equipment. And that's how Great Britain with 50 million people
militarily crushed Qing China. It's because China failed to keep up with
technology and lost it's massive lead during the renaissance. That meant that
it got lost in the dust in the industrial wars of the time. It's really,
honestly, a massive mistake that the Qing Dynasty made by not following
western developments and not trying to industrialize despite its massive
resources. It's economy was just a lot worse. Like, GDP per capita per year
around 300$ (2019 dollars) bad. And _that 's_ what led to the century of
humiliation, that plus their failure to adapt and industrialize when they had
the chance, believing that they could buy the capabilities to face off with a
modern army.

~~~
elfexec
> The first opium wars, at the start of the century of humiliation, began in
> 1839. Industrialization began in the 1780s.

We can argue about when industrialization began til the cows come home, but
the benefits of industrialization weren't materialized until the latter half
of the 1800s - after the opium wars when britain used stolen chinese capital
and stolen indian resources.

Everything you've written are nonsense repeated over and over again. It does
get exhausting correcting them, but I'll give it another shot.

> It was literally heavily armed, iron armored steamships versus middle-ages
> style sailboats.

That was the case everywhere. Steamships didn't become truly relevant until
the latter half of the 1800s because of how much coal was needed for these
ships. Think about it. When the british were trying to blockade the US, it
wasn't with steamships. It was with sail ships. Hell most of the naval ships
decades after the opium war were still powered by sail.

"sail was still the only solution for virtually all trade between China and
Western Europe or East Coast America. "

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamship)

> The Chinese were completely fucked at every single level economically
> compared to Great Britain, and that's why they lost.

Is that why the US beat britain in the american revolution? Because our
economy was so much superior to Great Britain? Is that why the mongols were
able to conquer china, russia, middle east? Because their economy was so much
larger? Is that why the barbarians were able to overrun the roman empire?
Because their economy was so much larger? Britain economy had nothing to do
with opium wars. Do you know why? Because britain started the opium wars
because china produced so much goods britain wanted while britain produced
very little that china wanted. So the trade deficit was so skewed in favor of
china that capital flowed exclusively from britain to china. The opium wars
was britain's attempt to remedy it. Since britain's "amazing economy" produced
nothing of value to china, they wanted to peddle drugs to china.

I won't bother with the rest. Figure it out yourself. If britain's economy was
so great ( as you implied ) there wouldn't have been any opium wars because
britain could cost-effectively produce stuff for china. They couldn't. Hence
why they needed to peddle drugs. Why do you think the corner drug dealers are
dealing drugs? Because they can't produce or do anything else of value. That
was britain.

~~~
sudosysgen
I never said that Britain was justified in any way in the Opium Wars, far from
it. But that's irrelevant to my point anyways.

Britain had ulterior problems than the trade imbalance with China. Throwing
out 2.6 million pounds of opium (weight) and refusing to talk about it as you
denied an embassy, because you saw yourself as a higher form of civilization
than those pesky barbarians in the east of the world did absolutely nothing to
help, which is why incidentally Russia France and the US were supportive
despite not having the same problem as Britain. Refusing to consider a peace
treaty, torturing POWs, killing messengers and so on is also a good part of
why the opium wars actually went through, there were quite a few times
parliament almost shut it down, and I'm pretty sure were it not for the insult
that Qing China kept imposing due to their frankly stupid feudal bureacracy
and It is true that opium had a large part in it and the British did like the
tax revenue it gave. But, as it happens, the fact that China wasn't
particularly interested in British manufactured goods isn't relevant to that
question, because the fact that China wasn't interested in industrializing its
vast worker base has nothing to do with the benefits of industrialization.

Your analysis of steamships is incorrect, by the way. 6 British steamships
sunk hundreds of Chinese ships, and were able to manoeuvre in ways that
Chinese didn't know were possible at all. They also single handedly destroyed
hundreds of artillery pieces and by virtue of being able to access shallower
waters and going against wind and current so easily they were able to attack
Naval fortifications from a side they weren't designed to protect from,
destroying them, and were able to carry firepower comparable to entire Chinese
fleets. Read about the individual Naval battles in the first Opium war, it's
actually incredible just how efficient steamships were since the very
beginning of the Opium Wars. They were literally a hard counter to the entire
Chinese arsenal, except for land-based artillery of course.

My claim of GDP being a good proxy for military capability was prefaced by
specifying it applied to industrialized warfare only. And it works pretty damn
well, actually, if you take into account morale and readiness. Not realizing
it at the time is a mistake that Hitler made invading the USSR, costing him
his life, and a mistake Hirohito made despite the warnings of Yamamoto, which
lead to Japan losing WW2. Its pretty damn accurate assuming two stable nation
states and factoring in the monetary equivalent of throwing bodies at the
enemy.

Yes, the Naval blockade of the US couldn't use steamships because they didn't
have enough of them to block the entire shoreline of the US while keeping them
supplied. The geography of the Chinese blockades were incredibly different.
Chinese logistics were centered around the main rivers, since, you know, no
real infrastructure. The British only had to blockade rivers in order to
cripple the Chinese economy.

China being a huge exporter of low-value added goods and materials, it was
simply impossible for Britain to balance the trade equation. The fact that
that simple proposition had to lead to a war is a good insight on why we got
rid of the gold standard.

Also, even before the industrial revolution, I can think of about 10 counter
examples to production capability being the main driving force behind military
victory, actually. Logistics and keeping your armies fed was possibly the
biggest factor behind pre-industrial empires.

Saying that the industrial revolution brought no benefit to warfare until the
later half of the 18th century is positively ridiculous. Using industrial
weaponry European powers were able to impose disgusting imperialist régimes in
a flash, because it was a huge advantage. To most of their enemies, it simply
was economically and technologically (two sides of the same coin) impossible
to fight back. But you can figure this one out yourself :)

~~~
elfexec
> I never said that Britain was justified in any way in the Opium Wars, far
> from it.

I never said you did. My comment specifically debunked your assertions about
"britain's superior economy", etc.

> But that's irrelevant to my point anyways.

Agreed.

> Throwing out 2.6 million pounds of opium (weight) and refusing to talk about
> it as you denied an embassy ...

Oh I see, now you are going to justify britain's behavior. Typical.

> 6 British steamships sunk hundreds of Chinese ships

Simply not true. There is a reason why almost all of britain's navy were
powered by sail even decades after the opium war. It was britain sail powered
ships that destroyed chinese ships.

> My claim of GDP being a good proxy for military capability was prefaced by
> specifying it applied to industrialized warfare only.

Industrialized warfare didn't really start until ww1, nearly 100 years after
the first opium war.

> China being a huge exporter of low-value added goods and materials, it was
> simply impossible for Britain to balance the trade equation.

You are mistaking today's china with china from 200 years ago. There is a
reason why "fine china" is called "fine china". Chinese goods ( tea, silk,
porcelain, etc ) were considered luxury items.

> Using industrial weaponry European powers

Oh god. The muskets the british and the europeans were using were inferior to
the bow and arrow. "European" weaponry didn't really separate itself from the
rest until the American civil war when we started using gatling guns, ironclad
ships, etc and then down the line oil for trucks, ships, etc.

Anyways, this is getting boring as I know you'll continue with your lies about
the most basic of history. My goal isn't to convince you, it's to make sure
people who read your lies are aware of it.

Saying that industrialization is why britain won the opium wars is like saying
nuclear weapons is why the US beat britain. Strange how the amazing
"industrialized" british couldn't beat the US in the american revolution nor
the war of 1812.

Here's a hint. British/American industrialization took off AFTER the opium
wars because the opium wars provided the capital necessary for british and
american industrialization.

And if you really want to know how the british "won" the opium wars, it's
simply a weak "foreign" central government and perfidious mandarins in
southern china. Similar to how france took over vietnam. And how britain took
over india. But you won't read about that in the history books. You have to
look "behind" the history books. Hope you enjoyed the lesson.

~~~
yorwba
> It was britain sail powered ships that destroyed chinese ships.

They were sail-powered steamboats. It's true that travelling all the way from
Britain to China using only steam power was impossible at the time. But the
very first British steamboat [1] also had sails. That way, they only had to
feed the steam engines when a maneuver required it, e.g. going against the
wind. That was evidently enough to win battles.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_(1839)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_\(1839\))

