突然被捕的MIT知名华人教授陈刚出身贫寒,是个不折不扣的工作狂,饶毅发文为其鸣不平

本文来源赛先生、饶毅科学

2019年,麻省理工学院机械工程系前主任、美国工程院院士陈刚在接受Nature访谈时表示,“当前的气氛造成了很多心理恐惧。”然而,今天早上厄运就降到他头上。

1月14日,美国司法部称,陈刚因未能向美国能源部披露其在中国工作和获得的奖励而被起诉、逮捕。一旦罪名成立,最高可判处20年监禁、25万美元的罚款。
陈刚被捕引起了国内外科学界高度关注。MIT校长向全校发表公开信,表示颇为不解并感到不安和震惊。北京大学讲席教授、知识分子总编辑饶毅撰文致MIT校长副校长的信:抬起头颅 直起脊梁为陈刚鸣不平(全文见文末),认为“川普主义从根本上腐蚀了美国的道德”,他致信给美国MIT校长、副校长,认为“在川普和他的谎言面前,美国很少政治家有脊梁。人们希望,作为学术卓越和学术自由灯塔的MIT,将昂起头颅,在波士顿FBI及其探员面前显示自己的脊梁,保护陈博士”…“世界在看着”。
事实上,早在2019年,他就缩短了在深圳南方科技大学的(他在MIT停薪留职,常规七年一度的学术休假)工作时间,返回麻省理工学院,以防止人们认为他可能向中国同事泄露知识产权或科学知识。
陈刚出生于湖北襄阳市,早年毕业于华中科技大学,之后进入美国,MIT工作了20年,是华人学者中第一位获得美国工程院院士称号的学者到底这位著名的华人学者有怎样的传奇经历,通过其自述或许可以揭晓答案。文章来自长江出版社《演讲襄阳·游子吟》。
突然被捕的MIT知名华人教授陈刚出身贫寒,是个不折不扣的工作狂,饶毅发文为其鸣不平
READING
导读
他从华中工学院(如今的华中科技大学)走出,进入美国加州大学伯克利分校机械系攻读博士学位,师从时任校长田长霖教授。毕业后辗转杜克、UCLA等几个大学任教,最终被挖到MIT,进而出任MIT机械工程系系主任,并当选美国国家工程院院士。

他率领的研究团队首次打破“黑体辐射定律”,被科学界认为“证实了百年来世界科学家所预言但无法证实的理论”。

当回到故乡襄阳,陈刚是如何亲自讲述自己求学、科研、演讲、感恩和思乡故事的?
演讲 | 陈刚(美国麻省理工学院机械工程系前主任)

我出生在襄阳市南漳县城关镇,很小的时候,母亲李家玉是挣工分的民办教师,只有父亲陈文朝一个人拿工资,家庭很困难,连买水果的钱都没有。虽然比较艰苦,但比起农村的孩子,还是要好一些。
我印象最深刻的是,每到周末,在城郊金庙小学教书的母亲会带我回城关外婆家,路上有一个新华书店,每次经过这里,我都要吵着让妈妈给我买小人书,如果不买,我就一路吭吭叽叽不高兴。现在感觉小时候不懂事,很感谢父母对我的养育之恩。
我3岁就开始识字,父亲没事的时候用粉笔在木板上、窗框上写上几个字,教我识字。上小学时,我已经能认好几百个字。
我小时候就爱读书,邻居们常常夸我聪明,父母并没有感觉我有什么特别聪慧之处,反而觉得读书入迷的我,像个“憨憨的书呆子”。
除了喜爱读书外,我还爱动脑筋,初中学习物理电学知识后,我买回一些小零件,一个人躲在一边缠线圈、拼装,制作了一台小台扇。
1978年夏天,我初中毕业,母亲要参加中考改卷,我只得跟随父亲到刘集高中过暑假,父亲想到我秋天要上高中,就把一本高一上学期的《三角》教材拿给我看。两个星期后,我居然自学完了这本教材,并做完了书上的练习题。更让父亲高兴的是,一本《三角》练习题,我全部做对了。
1978年秋天我考入襄阳五中。高中期间,大部分课余时间,我都泡在图书馆,周末和过节很少回家。读高二时,学校国庆节放3天假,我到图书馆看了半天书,然后用两天时间做了100道立体几何题。
1980年高考,我以优异成绩考入华中理工大学(现华中科技大学),但在体检时心脏出现杂音,招生人员准备拒录,是母校襄阳五中老师极力推荐并做了许多工作,我才得以跨进大学校门。
突然被捕的MIT知名华人教授陈刚出身贫寒,是个不折不扣的工作狂,饶毅发文为其鸣不平-医学科研网
 
现在的大学生都很聪明,很有潜力,要想成就事业,一要把聪明才智发挥出来,二要有机会。有的人一辈子抱怨没有机会,关键是机会来了要抓得住,人生的机会一个接一个,每抓住一次机会,就是一个很好的开始。
我在大二时开始想考研,那时发现我的英语将拖后腿。因此苦学英语,到大四时我都快把小英文词典记全了。
读研以后,我开始全力投入研究,读了很多文献,也培养了很好的独立研究能力。因此,当1987年硕士毕业时,我的导师把我留下做助教。
1988年,当田长霖教授在华工讲学时,香港王宽试基金会找到田教授,请他在中国大陆招生,基金会出奖学金。当时教研室推荐了两名青年教师面试,我是其中之一。田长霖是著名华裔教授,在加州大学贝克利分校做副校长。他用英文对我进行了近一个小时面试,当场决定收我做他的研究生。我想这之中我熟练的英文,及初步的研究经历是有决定性影响的。
这个社会有很多机会,当你把一件事做好了,抓住了人生的一次重要机遇,你就有了一个新的平台,就有了更广阔的天地,你继续努力,还会遇到更多的机遇和更好的平台。所以,年轻人最重要的是多锻炼自己,在各个方面多学多看,尽可能丰富自己,脚下的路就会越走越宽。
我1989年进的田长霖教授研究组,在做学生期间,我写了近10篇论文。我的研究是高温超导、非极性光学、量子井、超晶格、当导体激光。这和我在本科及硕士间的学习完全不一样。在写论文的同时,我也学了大量课程。有的是要求的,但大多数是我自己去学,甚至是旁听的。1993年,我博士毕业。当时美国经济很差,没有太多工作。我在杜克大学拿到一个教职,这是在200多名申请人之中选取的。我想能拿到这个工作,靠的是研究生期间的努力,当然与田长霖教授的大力支持有很大关系。
杜克大学虽然是美国很好的学校,但它的公共设施不是很好。这样,我在两年多后又在别的几所大学面试。加州大学洛杉矶分校特别喜欢我,给我了一个终身副教授。虽然杜克大学还想留我,破例在3年多就给了我终身头衔,但我还是在1997年来到加州大学洛杉矶分校。回想起来,我在没有学业毕业,没有很多科研经费的情况下,就提前拿到终身教授,和我科研的方向,和自己坚持独创是很有关系的。

突然被捕的MIT知名华人教授陈刚出身贫寒,是个不折不扣的工作狂,饶毅发文为其鸣不平
到加州大学一年多,我接到麻省理工大学机械系主任的电话,要求和我一起共进晚餐。我并不认识这位系主任,直觉告诉我,他们对我有意。美国是一个人才市场,你做得好,就有人挖你。2001年,我从加州大学来到了麻省。
到了麻省理工大学,学校真的与别的学校有很大差别。从做学术上,我知道美国好的学校都有高手。因此,虽然作为一名麻省理工大学教授听上去很了不起,但我总是告诫自己“山外有山”。在科研上,我总是比别人先走一步。从学生时代直到现在,我几乎每星期都工作70小时以上。
在很多人印象中,美国人工作时间短,休闲娱乐时间多,但我的美国生活并不是这样。
我一直认为,我跟大家一样,只是我用功一点。做科学研究,美国和中国有些不一样的地方,美国的教授最重要的工作是科研,而做科研时间就是无底洞。我每天早上5点钟起床,7点准时到办公室,晚上7点左右回家,有时是10点多才回家,一天要在学校呆12个小时。以前有一段时间,我早上4点起床,5点就到办公室了。每天工作十几个小时,是因为我喜欢搞科研,我从中得到了享受和乐趣。
我们夫妇有了孩子后,父母到美国帮助带孩子,在美国的两年时间,在父母眼中,我好像是个不折不扣的工作狂人。晚上常常10点左右才回家,而且回到家里十分疲惫,总要靠在沙发上眯一会儿觉,以解除疲劳。

突然被捕的MIT知名华人教授陈刚出身贫寒,是个不折不扣的工作狂,饶毅发文为其鸣不平
每天早上出门前,母亲会做两个三明治、拿两根香蕉让我带上,但我常常是回家时还有一个三明治或香蕉没有吃完,母亲责备我为什么不爱惜身体,我笑着说:“实验室太忙了,总是吃一个以后,忘记了吃第二个。”
我们学校有一个80多岁的老太太,是美国物理学会主席,在麻省理工大学有着最高荣誉,她每天早上6点会准时到办公室。我前几年在洛杉矶曾与她有过合作,那个时候,她每天夜里坐飞机赶过来,早上7点准时从机场直接到办公室,科研对她来说,就是一种乐趣。
当然,在美国搞科研也不是每个人都是这样。我的一个博士后学生就对我说:您这样太辛苦了,我将来做了教授,就不愿意这样一天工作十几个小时。但我还是觉得,我的科研工作具有很大挑战性,很有意义,我的每一天都过得很快乐。
1980年至1987年,我在华中科技大学读本科、硕士,1987年至1989年在华中科技大学任助教,1989年至1993年在美国加州大学伯克利分校攻读博士学位,1993年至1997年任美国杜克大学助理教授,1997年至2001年任美国加州大学洛杉矶分校副教授,2001年任美国麻省理工大学终身教授,2010年当选美国国家工程院院士。
一路走来,这些年,我在科研领域只做了一件事,那就是和我的团队一起,打破了“黑体辐射定律”公式。
“黑体辐射定律”由德国著名物理学家普朗克于1900年创立,是公认的物体间热力传导基本法则,该定律在绝大多数情况下成立,但普朗克对其在微距物体间是否仍成立,并没有把握。百余年来,虽然有物理学家怀疑此定律在两个物体极度接近时不能成立,但始终无法证明和提出实证。
我和我的团队研究证实,物体在极度近距时的热力传导,可以高到定律公式所预测的一千多倍。
我本科和硕士时期的同学、曾在麻省理工大学做了3年访问学者的华中科技大学环境科学与工程学院王劲柏副院长,对这一研究成果做了一个通俗的解释,从学理上简单地谈,物理学关于热的传递有3种:导热、对流与辐射。在辐射方面有个普朗克的黑体辐射定律,一直被学界普遍认可。但是,上世纪90年代纳米的出现,使人的目光转移到微观方向,有人怀疑黑体辐射定律,即在两物体接近时该定律不成立,但始终无法证明。而我和我的团队做到了,对极难测量的介质的近场热传递,是很不容易的。这一发现,不但让人们对基本物理有了进一步了解,它的应用也涉及光热光电、半导体、磁储存等领域,如改良计算机数据储存用硬盘的“记录头”等,相信在其他领域的重要作用也会逐步显现。
一个人要想成功,必须善于沟通和交流。这一点,在中国大陆的大学教育里的确不太重视。但是到了社会上特别是到了美国,才知道这是多么重要。我记得我在美国做第一次演讲时,大概是20分钟。田教授一个月前让我开始练习。我在我太太面前试讲过多次,但两个星期前田教授听了我的试讲之后,把我批得抬不起头。我觉得很不公平。但我听了他的教导,重写了我的演讲词,取得了很大成功。因此,我在从学生到助理教授、系副教授期间,每次演讲都要试讲很多次。这些成功的演讲,帮助我建立了自己的声誉。演讲只是一个例子,从写作到平常和别人谈话,我感觉,学生会交流,与我交流好的,一般后来都做得很成功。而我自己有一些研究方向,就是在与别人的交流中受到启发的。
这些年来,我每年都应邀到世界各地去讲学,每次回国,都会应邀到高校讲学交流,这些都是正常的学术交流。我所能做到的,就是尽可能用自己的努力,帮助国内培养人才。
我这里有很多来自国内的访问学者,仅华中科技大学就有4名,这对我来说很不容易,因为每天都有来自世界各地的专家学者到我们这里来,希望留下来学习,但极大部分我们不能收,因为没地方容纳他们。但我这里先后有来自华中科技大学、清华大学、华南理工大学、北师大、南开大学等学校的学术研究带头人。
这些年回国多少次,我都记不清,可是,我的父母却把我留美以后总共23次回国访问、探亲的时间、地点等,都详细地列表记录下来,父母这样细心让我感动。年轻的时候意识不到,现在我才体会到真是可怜天下父母心。在父母眼中,孩子再大,再有成就,都还是孩子。我每周都要打电话问候父母,向他们了解家乡的发展和变化。我也时常想念家乡、想念亲人,身在异乡,会经常想起家乡的山山水水。上周,我从华盛顿准备返回麻省理工大学,听说中组部一个代表团要到华盛顿访问,我又特别多等一天,为的是有机会见一见家乡的人,哪怕他们不是南漳人,不是襄阳人,甚至不是湖北人,就因为他们是中国人,他们来自我的祖国。
我的家乡是有山有水的好地方,这些年发展很快,我很高兴,特别是南漳作为一个山区县,要充分利用好山区的资源优势,克服与沿海地区相比的劣势,如何保持持续发展很具挑战性。我希望襄阳在发展过程中,注重保护环境,让家乡变得更加富强和美好!突然被捕的MIT知名华人教授陈刚出身贫寒,是个不折不扣的工作狂,饶毅发文为其鸣不平
作者简介

陈刚

著名华裔科学家,湖北南漳人,美国国家工程院院士,麻省理工学院机械工程系主任。1984年和1987年,分别获华中科技大学动力系学士和硕士学位;1993年获得加州大学伯克利分校机械系博士学位。现任麻省理工学院机械工程系Carl Richard Soderberg讲席教授,国际热传递、纳米技术和能源领域的权威人物。
 
制版编辑 | Morgan
附:

饶毅致MIT校长副校长的信:抬起头颅 直起脊梁

麻省理工学院(MIT)校长Rafael Reif
MIT研究副校长Maria Zuber
亲爱的Reif和 Zuber博士
波士顿联邦调查局(FBI)于2021年1月13日逮捕陈刚博士不是其他,就是种族主义行为。
如果MIT不支持陈刚博士,MIT将被认为参与了二十一世纪最糟糕的学术界种族歧视案例之一。
陈博士是受高度尊重的MIT科学家。他与中国的关系是学术界非常正常的关系。
陈博士与南方科技大学(南科大)的关系,你们两位都知道。南科大所在的深圳市领导曾经访问MIT,与MIT领导层会晤。陈博士与南科大签署的合约是代表MIT,不是代表他本人。陈博士咨询南科大丝毫不是秘密。
FBI对陈博士的关键指控是陈博士在申请能源部经费时,没有披露他与中国的五个关系:1)南科大顾问,2)中国国家自然科学基金会的评审专家,3)中关村发展集团战略科学家,4)中国留学生基金会顾问,5)中国第四届海外专家顾问。
这一指控极其荒谬。首先,研究经费发放机构要求申请人披露与研究相关的关系,以避免同一研究有多重经费支持。如果申请人有一项研究同时得到美国两个基金、或一个美国基金和一个中国基金支持,他应该披露。但以上五个关系都无关陈博士的研究经费,所以他当然不用在研究经费申请上披露。其次,他的这些关系是大多数学者一般的校外活动,不影响其研究和工作。它们不影响经费评审过程,不用向经费单位披露。第三,美国科学家为外国基金发放单位(如中国国家自然科学基金委)评审是常规工作。如果不披露为中国国家基金会评审经费是罪,那么有可能几乎所有MIT教授都可以被起诉曾经为以色列、意大利或英国政府的经费机构评审过研究课题。单单挑出中国的科学基金会为政府机构当然是种族主义,因为所有主要政府都有科学基金会。
陈博士的其他四个关系,可能充其量加起来一年只需要用他半天时间。与他有那些关系的机构不过是用他的名字,以便报告上级,自己“咨询了”国际顾问。
问题的根本所在,当然众所周知:川普主义从根本上腐蚀了美国的道德。
美国需要做很多才能从川普主义恢复过来。全世界都见证了,在川普和他的谎言面前,美国很少政治家有脊梁。
人们当然希望,作为学术卓越和学术自由灯塔的MIT,将昂起头颅,在波士顿FBI及其探员面前显示自己的脊梁,保护陈博士。
这是为陈博士,也是(如果不是更是)为MIT。
世界在看着。
饶毅
主题: MIT and racism Re: A slippery road 
Rafael Reif
Chancellor, MIT
Maria Zuber
Vice Chancellor for Research, MIT
Dear Drs. Reif and Zuber,
The arrest of Dr. Gang Chen on January 13th 2021 by the Boston FBI is nothing but thinly veiled racism.
If MIT does not support Dr. Gang Chen, MIT will be implicated in one of the worst cases of academic racism in the 21st century.
Dr. Chen is a highly respected scientist at MIT. His associations with China are very normal in academia.
Dr. Chen’s association with the Southern University of Science and Technology, or SUSTech, is known to both of you. The top leadership of Shenzhen city, where SUSTech is located, visited MIT and have met the MIT leadership. Dr. Chen signed an agreement with SUSTech on behalf of MIT, not on behalf of himself. There is no secret hidden by Dr. Chen that he is advising SUSTech.
The key charge by the FBI was that Dr. Chen did not disclose on his grant proposal to the DOE 5 associations with China: 1) an advisor to SUSTech, 2) “review expert” for the National Natural Science Foundation of China or NNSFC, 3) a Zhongguanchun Development Group or ZDG Overseas Strategic Scientist, 4) an advisor to the China Scholar Councilor or CSC, and 5) a “4th Overseas Expert Consultant” to the PRC government.
This is a ridiculous charge. First of all, funding agencies require applicants to disclose associations that are related to the research in the grant proposal, so that a research project does not receive duplicate funding. So, if Dr. Chen has a project funded by both a US agency and another US or Chinese agency, he should have disclosed it. But none of the 5 associations are related to Dr. Chen’s research funding, so of course he should not list them on his grant proposals. Secondly, these associations are usual outside activities of most scholars that do not impinge on their own research or work. Thus, they do not affect grant review processes and do not need to be disclosed to funding agencies. Thirdly, reviewing grants for other countries (such as NNSFC) is a regular activity. If failure to report reviewing for NNSFC is a crime, then almost all MIT professors could be charged with reviewing for funding agencies of Israeli, Italian, or British governments. Singling out a science foundation of China as a government agency is simply racism as all major governments have science foundations. 
The other four associations of Dr. Chen would add up to less than half a day of work per year because those associations have little to ask him other than using his name to let superiors know that each agency “had consulted” international experts.
The root of the problem is, of course, known to all of us: Trumpism has fundamentally eroded morality in the US.
Much have to be done for the US to recover from Trumpism. The entire world has witnessed how few US politicians have spines, in front of Trump and his lies.
We certainly hope that MIT, a beacon of academic excellency and freedom, will hold its head high and show your spine in front of a racist Boston FBI and its agents in defending Dr. Chen. 
This is for Dr. Chen, but it is also, if not more, for MIT.
The world is watching.
Yi Rao
发件人: Transmissome <yrao@pku.edu.cn&gt;
日期: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 1:51 PM
至: Maria Zuber
抄送: "L. Rafael Reif" >, "R. Gregory Morgan"
主题: A slippery road 
Dear Maria,
I appreciate that you are “a strong and vocal proponent of the U.S. having an open research system that attracts the best students and faculty from around the world”.
The NIH recommendation for strict control is based on a rule that was not and can not by enforced in the court. In effect, it will only create frictions in the US and distrust by other countries such as China.
I am glad that, on your panel, Dr. Wallace Loh of the University of Maryland studies law.
NIH is using “Other Supports” to ask applicants to list funding sources and projects. But: 
1) what was written in Other Support was never a big deal. The major purpose was to ensure that there is no duplication of federal support of the same project at the same time. Most applicants would list federal and other public sources, but not private donations. 
Funding from foreign sources has always been unclear, but no one cares. There is a good possibility that Japanese government funds, in the form of RIKEN, support research on learning and memory at MIT. You can check, but my guess is that such support has not been listed in any of the NIH grant applications of the MIT investigators. I do not blame them, I think that this was OK if I sat on an NIH study section reviewing their grant applications.
2) NIH grant applications are supposed to be true, but how can they be required to be “complete”? This is scientifically impossible. 
The major parts of the grant application are not “OTHER SUPPORT”, but “Preliminary Studies” and “Research Design and Methods”. 
In most experiments, one will obtain positive and negative results. Few if any grant applicants will list negative results countering their own plan in grant proposals. It is understood and allowed because researchers have the freedom to decide the best way forward based on their own judgement of their results. They are not required to provide complete information. If they choose the wrong road despite their knowledge of negative results, it will be to their detriment. But they can ignore some negative results and move forward and, with more experiments after NIH funding approval and support, find their hunch to be correct. 
This happens in science again and again. Because of this, Jim Watson of the double helix fame once remarked that a good theory should not be ruined by bad results. 
3) How can Chinese or Japanese funding influence NIH in a bad way? I can not imagine. I don’t know who can.
If a PI in the US gets an extra lab in China or Japan, the funding is usually for the labs in China or Japan, not his/her US labs. 
His/her home institutions would want to ensure he/she still performs well in the home institution, but that requires no extraordinary caution because many biomedical scientists have associations with companies. 
Because the PI’s US lab is not supported by other sources, it is unclear whether he or she should list them in OTHER SUPPORT.
If a PI has funding from another country supporting his/her lab in the US, that complements and amplifies the NIH support, and strengthens the mission of the NIH. How can that be wrong? NIH study sections review grant applications with NIH criteria, and if NIH decides to fund a proposal, it is because the NIH finds it good enough.
In summary, the ado about nothing created by the NIH will have no good effect because there was no real problem to be solved. Problems with a few bad eggs are not systematic and can be solved with existing rules and laws at existing institutions, without consuming the time and efforts of the NIH. 
Keeping this report only sends a signal that the NIH and US academic institutions agree with the Very-Large-Brain: keep distances from the Chinese.
What a sad turn of events? US scientists and academic institutions used to support scientists who suffered in Soviet Union, for example. Now, some Chinese academics are blocked from visiting the US (including attending symposia at MIT), or intensely questioned at the airports. This is the first time US scientists and academic institutions have joined in persecuting scientists from other countries (a few Houston biomedical researchers were investigated in the Clinton manner, stretching from one question to another until the focus was far from the original and could not even be tested in courts but careers were already ruined, all sending the same signal: dare you have Chinese connections).
If academics can go this far, then what can possibly prevent the Very-Large-Brain and his people to push in other ways (note the recent arrest of a Chinese IT company executive, a Chinese citizen supposedly have violated US domestic law while working in China)?
The Chinese are now puzzled, and if push comes to shovel, the usually quiet Chinese will be forced to walk away. 
This is a slippery road that was pushed by the US side along, against many other countries.
Yi
发件人: Maria Zuber
日期: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 6:19 AM
至: Transmissome
抄送: Maria Zuber
主题: Re: thinly veiled discrimination based on national and racial origins
Dear Prof. Yi--
Thank you for taking the time to write to me and other members of our panel about your concerns.  I am a strong and vocal proponent of the U.S. having an open research system that attracts the best students and faculty from around the world, and those views are shared by our entire panel.  Our report explicitly discusses the value of foreign scholars.  
That said, it is important to ensure that all researchers who receive research funding from the U.S. government be open about their support and comply with basic, longstanding rules.  The goal of our report is to remedy transgressions that have been uncovered at NIH, so that valuable international collaborations can continue.
Thank you again for taking the time to lay out your concerns.
Sincerely—
Maria Zuber
On Dec 15, 2018, at 11:16 PM, Yi Rao wrote:
Dear Dr. Zuber,
I met the delegation led by the MIT president a few weeks ago. I was encouraged that MIT is not bending to the toxic brand of Trumpistic xenophobia.
I am surprised now that you were one of the co-signatories of to the report presented by the Advisory Committee to the NIH director: Foreign Influences on Research Integrity.
I was on the Faculty of Washington University School of Medicine from 1994 to 2004, in the then Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology (now Neuroscience). I enjoyed my ten years at Wash U and my children also grew up there. I felt welcome at Wash U, though racial discrimination in hiring continued but discriminations were not overt.
The report on Foreign Influences on Research Integrity is a textbook case of distortions, fabrications and lies, all beginning with thinly veiled national and racial discriminations. 
NIH’s mission is to support biomedical research to improve human health. Your institution is here to save lives, not a military organization to kill people of other countries. NIH does not even claim intellectual properties from research supported by its grants. So the current hysteria is not based on your own mission, but hypocritic response to Trumpism.
MIT has many Chinese scholars and students. The first Chinese biochemist Hsien Wu was trained at MIT before he invented the most useful method for measuring blood glucose with Dr. Folin at Harvard Medical School. The Folin-Wu method helped millions of patients over many decades. Upon returning to China in the 1920s, he became father of biochemistry in China and made contributions regarding antibodies and protein folding.
I hope that you do not view current Chinese students and scholars at MIT as thieves sent by China. They all went there for career development, some even with American dreams. How disappointed they would be if they find out that their director and deputy director are all responsible for a report implying that China a systematic effort to steal intellectual properties through students and scholars in non-militarily related disciplines. Had it not been about them, they would have "laughed to death” (a Chinese proverb). 
I am one of the 4 scholars who proposed what was later named awkwardly as the Thousand Talent Program. Its purpose was solely to recruit. All countries do this. Canada has a program called Canadian Chairs which also includes recruitment. 
From the 1980s to 2010, Chinese universities and research institutes have been semi-depleted in science because large numbers of Chinese scientists have emigrated. It is very reasonable for China to recruit when resources allow. The other reason is for China to pay back to the world with increasing support of science: most advances in sciences contribute to humankind, not limited to one country. It is so ironic when China’s effort to contribute to humankind is now distorted by Trumpism prevalently in the US.
A major problem with the Thousand Talent Program is that a fraction of the putative recruits hesitate about returning to China full time, some of them may need a transition, which is reasonable, but some intentionally take labs and funds in China while living and working in the US with no intention to move to China full time. Whether this is allowed is decided by individual institutions, and not encouraged by the central government. If fact, the government wants to clean up this kind because it is viewed as a waste of Chinese resources. Some institutions intentionally hide such cases from the government so that they do not get blamed. For universities such as Peking, we do not allow that. When such cases arise, China usually loses because such individuals have full time jobs in the US, and thus stick to US rules and laws, but not those in China where they only have part time jobs. Some even take such advantages only to visit their families. 
Thus, not only the Thousand Talent Program never tries to steal intellectual properties, but its major problem actually hurts China. It does not hurt the US at all, when US scientists get extra funding and resources. Research in biomedical sciences leads to papers published in journals accessible to all scientists. 
When a few individuals behaved wrongly, it is their fault, not the fault of an entire country or billions of people. The current NIH director, Dr. Francis Collins, once withdrew two papers because of fabrications by a student in his lab. Should we call the Collins lab a thief or liar? Or by extrapolation, call the NIH an institution led by someone who had scientific misconduct? Of course not. Because the problems were the faults of that student, not Dr. Collins or the NIH (or the University of Michigan at that time).
I hope that you will revise this report or withdraw your signatory.
When history looks back, this report, as it stands now, will be a stain on everyone who signed the morally corrupt report.
Sincerely
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
Professor and Director, PKU-IDG/McGovern Institute for Brain Research
Dean, Division of Sciences, Peking University
Director, Chinese Institute for Brain Research, Beijing
China
<NIH 12 13 2018 Foreign Influences[1].pdf>
____________________________________
Maria T. Zuber
Vice President for Research
E.A. Griswold Professor of Geophysics 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue, 3-234
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
http://orgchart.mit.edu/vice-president-research
Research Office:
Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue, 54-518
Cambridge, MA  02139-4307
Phone: 617.253.6397
http://www-geodyn.mit.edu
Not all those who wander are lost.
-- J.R.R. Tolkien
版权声明
本文转载自柳叶刀,版权属于原作者,仅用于学术分享

微信加群

BioMan主要报道生命科学领域热点资讯、解读前沿进展、分享科研资料。我们组建了10余个交流群,欢迎大家进群交流。添加公众号博主微信:mBioMan(下方二维码),邀你进群。温馨提示:添加博主时,请备注一下研究方向+单位/学校!

突然被捕的MIT知名华人教授陈刚出身贫寒,是个不折不扣的工作狂,饶毅发文为其鸣不平

在看,也是一种习惯
生物医学科研方法

Cell | 脂肪多了终究还是泪!

2021-1-17 18:15:56

生物医学科研方法

RNA seq第十四讲 |RNA-Seq分析(2)

2021-1-17 18:16:15