When the Department of Justice announced its China Initiative in 2018, it said protecting national security was a goal.
But a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests the initiativeâs investigations may have caused valuable researchers of Chinese descent to leave the U.S. for China.
The paper, âCaught in the crossfire: Fears of Chinese-American scientists,â doesnât confirm causation between the initiative and the departures. Its data, from 2010 to 2021, shows that the annual number of Chinese-descent scientists leaving the U.S. was steadily increasing before 2018.
But the trend greatly accelerated that year, the study found.
âThe migration has increased during those 12 years, from 900 scientists in 2010 to 2,621 in 2021, with an accelerated departure rate (75 percent higher) in the last three years ⦠coinciding with the launch of the China Initiative in 2018,â the authors wrote.
The Justice Department, which didnât comment for this story, ended the initiative in early 2022. The authors wrote that there are questions over how much âthe formal dropping of the âChina Initiativeâ name has been accompanied by substantive changes in the governmentâs practices that address the chilling effects.â (...)
âPowerful countries collecting intelligence on other powerful countries (including their own allies) is a universal and banal feature of international relations, and it only becomes a danger to national security if the other country is a committed enemy,â said Jake Werner, who specializes in U.S.-China relations as a Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute. âChina is not today a U.S. enemy, but feverishly hyping supposed threats from China is driving a confrontational approach to U.S.âChina relations that risks turning China into such an enemy.â
Werner added, referring to the Times article, âtreating China as an enemy encourages the exaggeration of differences between the two countries and blindness to similarities.â
Exaggerating those differences and engaging in China threat-inflation is also good for business, whether that means selling more newspapers, getting reelected, giving more money to the defense industry, and getting funding directly from it. Indeed, any company involved in âthreat intelligence,â as Recorded Future apparently is, certainly has an interest in seeing that those threats exist, real or imagined.
not sure why the ccp would want to erase/hide this
blatant intentional censorship by the ccp obviously destroys trust and credibility
not a wise move on their/xi's part
Pretty awkward wording: "stop selling advanced microchip sales". Seems like it was written by a bot or a translator program. Then again, I'm not used to the Twitter-sphere - maybe a lot of tweets read like that.
as i understand it one of the wrinkles is that micron pulled out of an IPO three days before scheduled
someone in power probably felt slighted/upset so micron gets investigated
probably more nuanced than that
there are legit analyses/conversations regarding this and similar topics
the china power project is pretty good (listen/read here)
or paul triolo's work too (over at csis) he has a twitter account that pings some tech news as well
regards
Pretty awkward wording: "stop selling advanced microchip sales". Seems like it was written by a bot or a translator program. Then again, I'm not used to the Twitter-sphere - maybe a lot of tweets read like that.
Pretty awkward wording: "stop selling advanced microchip sales". Seems like it was written by a bot or a translator program. Then again, I'm not used to the Twitter-sphere - maybe a lot of tweets read like that.
The state of US education? More worried about guns, genitals and historical correctness.
so you post an article about the activity of science articles submitted
and i agree it is good that this is happening
i also agree with the article you posted that cooperation benefits all involved
and what do you post in response?
did you read the article you posted?
and if you did read it, the above is what you took away?
is this really your best objective assessment of what was written?
regards
Caroline Wagner, a science and policy researcher at the Ohio State University in Columbus, who has published research1 suggesting that China has overtaken the United States on top-cited papers, says that, when measured on âsimple bibliometrics like productivity and citations, China has outperformed expectationsâ.
She adds, however, that it still âsignificantly trailsâ behind other nations âin its capacity to absorb and apply knowledgeâ, and that the impact of the decline in its research collaborations with some major countries, such as the United States, remains uncertain.
This, Wagner says, âportends ill for domestic progress. Numerous scholars have demonstrated that Chinaâs most-cited works are produced in collaboration with other nations, particularly the United States.â
At a time of intense partisan polarization, bashing China is one issue on which both parties canât get enough. Republicans sense that Chinaâs rise â and the supposed American decline that accompanies it â serves as a useful political weapon against President Joe Biden.
âThe second thing thatâs happening, and thatâs more concerning for me,â Michael Brenes, Non-Resident Fellow at the Quincy Institute, told Responsible Statecraft, âis that the Biden administration is pursuing a policy where it believes the China threat can be served to revive or renew American democracy and American foreign policy, in a post war on terror era.â Meaning, he added, that everything from domestic renewal to industrial policy to foreign policymaking is being justified on that basis. (...)
The way in which this is being framed caters to the most hawkish members in Congress, according to Brenes. But heâs not confident that the trend will be reversed anytime soon, because targeting a common enemy is âjust too convenient for politicians in the United States, particularly at the moment where weâre getting concerned about the anxiety of American power, and concerned about the future of American dominance and hegemony.â