Challenges to the Harmonious Mode of Scientific Collaboration:
Collaboration and competition in science are often combined harmoniously, but this mode of operation is facing threats. Issues such as intellectual property theft and growing competition, particularly from China, are affecting scientific collaboration.

China’s Increasing R&D Investment:
China’s R&D expenditures have been growing significantly since 2000. In recent years, China’s R&D spending has increased by 14%, 16%, and 34% annually, surpassing the R&D investments of countries like the United States, EU, Japan, and Germany.

China as a Nation of Immigrants:
China’s population consists largely of immigrants. This diverse population contributes to China’s scientific and technological advancements.

Gifts of Intellectuals from Around the World:
The U.S. has benefited from influxes of immigrants forced to flee their home countries due to political events, particularly from China, the Middle East, and the Soviet Union. These immigrants have brought with them a wealth of knowledge and expertise, contributing significantly to the U.S.’s scientific and technological progress.

Nobel Prizes and Immigration:
Over 30% of U.S. Nobel laureates in physics have been immigrants. Many Chinese-American scientists have won Nobel Prizes in physics, highlighting the significant contributions of this immigrant group to U.S. science. Foreign-born laureates have also made substantial contributions to U.S. academia, science, and the defense industry.

Immigrants’ Role in Company Founding:
Immigrants have founded or co-founded a significant number of Fortune 500 companies, including notable names like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Sergey Brin, Jerry Yang, and Jensen Huang. These entrepreneurs have helped drive innovation and economic growth in the U.S.

Social Connections and Immigration:
Immigrants often lack social connections in their new country, which can lead them to focus on science and entrepreneurship as avenues for success. This drive and focus have contributed to the U.S.’s scientific and economic leadership.

US Contributions To Science And Research:
The United States has benefited from the contributions of many international students and researchers. Fortune 500 firms and various industries have been founded by immigrants.

Concerns Regarding Fundamental Research:
Recent reports highlight concerns about threats to fundamental research. The National Science Foundation (NSF) commissioned a report in December 2019 to address these concerns.

Distinction Between Fundamental And Applied Research:
Fundamental research is typically published and shared openly within the scientific community. Applied research, industrial research, and classified research may have restrictions on publication and dissemination.

Ethical Values In Scientific Research:
The United States is among a group of countries that uphold ethical values such as objectivity, honesty, and accountability in scientific research. Some actions by the Chinese government and institutions have raised concerns about their alignment with these ethical values.

National Security Decision Directive 189 (NSDD 189):
NSDD 189, issued during the Reagan administration, draws a distinction between fundamental research and classified research. It mandates that the products of fundamental research remain unrestricted and that no restrictions should be placed on conducting or reporting such research.

Recommendation For Reaffirming NSDD 189:
A key recommendation of the Jason report is that the NSF should support the reaffirmation of NSDD 189 principles, ensuring that fundamental research remains unrestricted to the fullest extent possible.

IP Commission Reports:
The IP commission has released reports discussing threats related to the asymmetric relationship between US research dissemination practices and international practices.

Senate Report On Threats To The US Scientific Enterprise:
A Senate report, led by Bob Portman and Tom Carper, highlights threats posed by China’s talent recruitment plans and includes content from an earlier FBI report.

FBI Counterintelligence Report:
The FBI’s Counterintelligence Strategic Partnership Intelligence Note (SPIN) provides evidence of individuals being targeted to acquire sensitive information from US research institutions.

China’s 12th Five-Year Plan:
China aims to become a leader in various fields, including new energy, nuclear, wind, solar, energy conservation, environmental protection, biotechnology, new materials, new information technology, high-end equipment manufacturing, and clean energy vehicles.

China’s Technological Ambitions:
China seeks to challenge the United States’ lead in science and technology and become a global leader in key technologies.

Anecdotal Evidence of Technology Transfer:
There are instances of Chinese researchers and students transferring sensitive information back to China, but the extent of this phenomenon is unclear.

Sputnik Moment and the Rise of Science Education in the US:
The Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik in 1957 sparked a panic in the United States, leading to increased investment in science and technology education.

Eisenhower’s Response to Sputnik:
President Eisenhower emphasized the importance of training scientists and engineers, prioritizing it above immediate military needs.

Science and Technology’s Role in Innovation and Economic Growth:
Innovation drives societal wealth, and science and technology research and development are crucial for innovation.

Leadership in Innovation:
Leadership in innovation cannot be taken for granted and requires continuous investment and effort.

Need for Investment in Science and Technology:
The United States needs to invest heavily in science and technology to maintain its lead in innovation and address global challenges.

China’s Rise in Technological Innovation:
Steven Chu expressed concerns about America’s declining leadership in technological innovation, highlighting China’s intentions to become a leading innovator.

Chu’s Warning to Congress:
During his tenure as Energy Secretary, Chu emphasized the need for America to address China’s focus on scientific and technological innovation as a pillar of their economic growth.

China’s Strategic Approach:
Chu quoted Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s emphasis on leveraging science and technology to gain an advantageous position in international industrial competition.

America’s Stagnant Response:
Despite Chu’s warnings, Congress initially dismissed concerns about China’s technological advancements.

America’s Missed Opportunity:
Chu lamented the lack of action from the U.S. government in seizing the opportunity to maintain innovation leadership.

Chu’s Call for Action:
Chu urged America to formulate long-range energy policies with bipartisan support and increase support for research and development (R&D).

America’s Historical Response to Competition:
Chu drew parallels between America’s past responses to competition from Germany and Japan in the automotive industry, emphasizing the need for a more proactive approach.

The Proper Response to China’s Ambitions:
Chu advocated for improving America’s own innovation and technological capabilities, rather than resorting to protectionist measures.

DOE’s Policy on Foreign Funding:
The Undersecretary of Science in the Department of Energy, Paul Dabar, announced that individuals receiving taxpayer dollars from DOE cannot simultaneously work for foreign entities.

Academic Secrets and Defensive Postures:
Concerns about academic secrets being stolen, particularly basic research, have led to defensive postures in the US. Fear that China could translate basic science into treatments faster than the US has contributed to this defensiveness. Defensive postures include increased scrutiny of funding sources and collaborations with China.

Charles Lieber Case:
Arrest of Charles Lieber for accepting personal and research funding from China without declaring it to relevant agencies. This case highlights the illegality of such actions and raises questions about the ethics of young, ambitious researchers.

Issues with Confidentiality:
Some research groups forbid researchers from working on topics they studied in previous labs, essentially implementing a non-compete clause. NIH considers support in the form of non-commercially available materials, such as tissue cultures or cell lines, to be significant support, which requires declaration. This conflicts with the ethics of scientific discovery and open sharing, which are encouraged by journals like Science and Nature.

Protesting in the Name of Science:
Yangyang Chen, a Chinese physicist postdoc, wrote a series of columns about the importance of science and democracy in modern society. She emphasizes the connection between scientific progress and democratic values, arguing that science flourishes in open societies. Chen’s personal experience attending a political demonstration, despite her mother’s wishes, highlights the significance of these values to her.

Google’s Role in Research:
Chu emphasizes the importance of Google in facilitating scientific research, particularly in his own work. Without access to Google, research can be severely impaired.

Audience Question:
The discussion moves on to address the audience’s questions, starting with the sad event at Harvard.

China’s Intentions:
China’s recruitment of foreign scientists aims to establish outposts in China and gain access to cutting-edge research conducted in top US labs. By obtaining early insights into ongoing research, China can allocate resources to catch up or even surpass the original innovators.

Ethical Concerns:
China’s actions constitute unethical espionage, which is not limited to China but occurs worldwide, including among Americans. Scientific progress depends on adherence to ethical standards.

Proposed Solutions:
Affirmation of ethical standards: Every country and university should acknowledge and endorse ethical standards for scientific research. Strict disciplinary measures: Universities should consider firing faculty members who engage in conflicts of commitment or unethical behavior. Legal consequences: Lying to the FBI or concealing funding sources should be considered felonies and made illegal. Transparency: Scientists should be required to disclose all funding sources, making secret funding illegal.

Government Oversight and Scientific Research:
The speaker received a letter of reprimand from the president of their university for co-organizing a conference in China with a talent seeker. The reprimand raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and adherence to Department of Energy (DOE) guidelines.

Legal vs. Ethical Considerations:
The speaker’s actions may have technically complied with DOE regulations, but they faced ethical scrutiny within the scientific community. The discussion highlights the tension between legal compliance and maintaining ethical standards in scientific research.

Honoraria and Ethical Obligations:
Steven Chu discusses the practice of receiving honoraria for speaking engagements and the ethical considerations surrounding their use. Chu questions whether donating honoraria to a research fund is sufficient to address potential conflicts of interest.

Importance of Self-Policing and Norms:
The speakers emphasize the significance of self-policing and adherence to established norms of behavior within the scientific community. They argue that maintaining openness, transparency, and ethical standards is crucial for the advancement of science.

Addressing Ethical Concerns:
The American Physical Society (APS) has established an ethics committee to address ethical issues in scientific research. The speakers stress the need to reinforce social norms that promote ethical behavior and encourage government understanding of their importance.

Conclusion:
The discussion underscores the complexities of navigating ethical dilemmas in scientific research, highlighting the need for a balance between government oversight and self-policing, as well as the importance of maintaining strong ethical standards and norms within the scientific community.

Personal Impact:
Steven Chu’s personal experience with collaboration issues with former postdocs at Fudan University has become very personal for him. Five of his postdocs left his group, two of whom got assistant professorships at the University of Chicago, one at Harvard, and two at Fedon, which is typical for his group.

Fudan Collaboration:
The Fudan people expressed interest in continuing collaboration with Chu after his postdocs left. More than half of Chu’s former group members had friendly relations and collaborations with him. However, the two postdocs at Fudan became distant and secretive after they were hired.

One-Way Diode:
The collaboration with the Fudan postdocs became a one-way diode, with them wanting to know what Chu was doing but not sharing their own plans with him. This is in contrast to the open and collaborative relationships that Chu typically has with his postdocs, who often seek his critique and advice.

Crazy Things:
Chu discovered that the Fudan postdocs were engaging in unethical behavior, such as trying to delay the publication of data taken in his lab so that it could be published under Fudan University’s name.

Consequences:
Chu has ended his collaboration with the Fudan postdocs and will not write recommendations for them. He has also canceled their visiting professorships and access to Google Drive.