Defection is easy to define. You once worked for the CIA, now you are working for the KGB. IP "theft" is more nebulous. There is lots of debate as to what is protected intellectual property, what is open source, what is common knowledge, and even which IP law governs the situation. Does every leaked copy of a Hollywood movie qualify as a theft? Some of those movies are worth hundreds of millions and their leak can cost millions in reduced ticket sales. That's a form of both copyright and trade secret theft. Or are we only talking about patented material, which is public? It's very hard to determine what should and shouldn't be on that list.
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?
>> 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.
"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."
Am I not supposed to use calculus outside of the United States if I learned it while living here?
The concept of “where” you do or have a thing is well enshrined in law. Here for example knives that are perfectly legal to possess in your kitchen become illegal if you were to walk down the street holding one. It’s exactly the same with some forms of IP, these are often called “dual use” in legal terminology.
> 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.
There is some irony in the fact that American academic institutions started out recruiting Chinese (and other foreign) Phd students and post-docs in order to expand the labor pool and push down wages.
Aim of Academic institutions conducting research is for the benefit of humanity. Their principles are to hire the highly qualified people irrespective of their nationality or religion. It’s a merit based hiring.
There is no secret conspiracy here to bring down wages of researchers. Some people just do it for the likes.
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.
As part of the exact employment contract, a researcher's work may be patented by the institute they work for (with the researcher being remunerated for this).
Biomedical patents are not trivial software patents. Billions of dollars of investment goes into developing a single new therapy. The molecular structure of medicine can often be easily replicated once discovered, so patents are a key part of commercializing new medicine and techniques. (See the CRISPR-Cas9 patent debacle.) Taking the right to patent some work away from the institute it was developed at means theft of the licensing fees derived from the patent, and an impact on an institute's ability to keep funding R&D.
Your typical research doesn't lead to billions in licensing fees. 99% of research produces nothing of direct monetary value at all, and research that does is generally done in startups or pharma/biotech companies, where the rules are far more stringent than in university-affiliated labs. Still, of course you are right that this is all a gray area.
While the vast majority of academic labs aren’t producing finished products like drugs, it’s not uncommon for researchers to obtain patents on certain promising leads.
Most universities have a “tech transfer” office that helps with this (the university usually gets a share) and tries to find licensees.
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, my intent wasn't to cause a 'nationalistic flamewar'. I've seen you many times shoot down attempts by many HN users over the years exposing the CCP. It almost seems you are taking orders from the CCP itself. I honestly see you as an enabler of the CCP, intentional or not.
> With that background, the morality of "smuggling" these cells is a bit of a gray area.
The grey area here is from lack of foundational knowledge surrounding these cells, and your assumptions aren’t useful (nor are they likely, I suspect, to hold). For example, we have no idea if these cells were originally provided to the lab under an MTA, nor any restrictions placed by the funding source.
> Keeping them is just like me keeping my notebooks when I move, even if I haven't finished solving the equations therein.
This is not a grey area: lab notebooks and lab data are generally speaking the property of the lab. The proper procedure is to request permission to create a copy of them when you move to a new institution. Check your university’s IP policy, it should be the governing rule set.
I thought this was a great comment until the petty jab at the end. Being concerned about this issue and being "disgusted at the idea of Chinese people learning science" are clearly different things. Don't let a few bad apples cloud your view of the rest of us.
If you see such comments you should bring them to our attention by flagging them or, in egregious cases, emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com about them. This is something we moderate heavily:
Skew is inevitable on certain issues given that HN demographics are (though highly international) mostly Western. But that doesn't mean that people get to post slurs or use the site for nationalistic flamewar.
There isn’t enough information in the linked article to say how unique or important these particular cells are or how difficult they would be to replicate. On the more valuable end could be cells provided by a company for testing (maybe transformed to express some sort of protein they’ve created), or primary cells (isolated from an organism) that are unique in some way, or hybridomas that produce monoclonal antibodies for something druggable or diagnostically relevant.
The Boston Herald article linked by another commentator suggests that in at least one element this case fits the pattern of others that have been appearing: the accused is receiving funds from the Chinese government under an ostensible scholar program. In some of the other cases, such as with the Thousand Talents program, the scholars signed contracts that agreed to disclose or assign IP only to the Chinese institutions, conceal the source of funding for studies (both to journals or funding agencies), or agree to work at the Chinese institutions in excess of the norms for visiting appointments. The Thousand Talents program and others like it are a coordinated, calculated, and deliberate effort run by the Chinese government, not the accidental missteps of some aloof academics.
Honestly, that just sounds like the usual rules for academic funding, phrased in a conspiratorial way. Would you also call NSF funding "a coordinated, calculated, and deliberate effort run by the American government"? Is science good for nothing but proxy war to you?
> conceal the source of funding for studies (both to journals or funding agencies)
doesn't sound like the usual rules for academic funding. I heavily doubt whether the Thousand Talents program really has such a rule. It's the exact opposite of what organizations funding scientific research usually want: getting their name acknowledged in as many papers in prestigious journals as possible, in order to demonstrate success.
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.
While I agree with much of your sentiment at least two things stand out as not quite right:
> China at its historical peak was never more than a regional power
This is entirely a matter of foreign policy. In terms of production/population/capability, during many periods ancient china would rival/surpass the greatest contemporary empires. I don't think it's appropriate to say "they were not that great" if the main thing that differentiates them from "great" empires is that they didn't pursue a program of unconstrained conquest (and often closely related enslavement/ethnic cleansing).
> the CCP has done more to hold China's development back than western colonialism and the war with Imperial Japan
This is also not very clear. India had opportunity to work with the west/open market/democracy earlier than China yet is clearly falling behind China in development. In fact, I think one of the main reason for such compliance on the part of Chinese populace is that the standard of living really did skyrocket all within single generations. In 2000 people lived incredibly better than in 1980; now entering 2020 people live much, much better than they did in 2000. To disregard the magical transformation in standard of living (especially in urban areas) is disingenuous.
----
At the same time I don't want to detract from what I believe is the main point. The deep ethno-nationalism and the sick man of Asia narrative that the government is instilling in the youths is truly troubling. It blinds seemingly educated people to obvious abuses by the government and casts the specter of "evil US" as a boogeyman justifying terrible Chinese actions. Even many of the Chinese I met in the US still believe in "US constantly acting nefariously to subvert China" story, despite living in the US for years...
As far as China at its historical peak goes, the sentiment I was trying to express is the PRC's goal is for China to regain the world's most powerful nation and the worlds most powerful military with all nations recognizing this and being tributaries (and that this position is an exaggeration from historical truth).
On the second point, the CCP certainly deserves a lot of credit for Deng Xiaoping's reforms and the economic expansion since 1978. Though much of the early gains was to undo the Mao's collectivization of rural lands.
> Though much of the early gains was to undo the Mao's collectivization of rural lands.
This is simply not true. In 1978, start of reforms, GDP per capita was >50% higher than 1966 (start of cultural revolution) [0]. In current dollars it was $104/per capita in 1966 and $155 in 1978 (although there is something funny going on as it was ~$180 both preceding and succeeding years). More important is the miracle streak starting in 1988 where every year was positive.
I think it is important to not diminish Chinese achievement while criticizing China, because by denying their achievements you allow the unconvinced Chinese readers to say "ha, clear US bias and propaganda" and ignore the much more troubling truth about their current government (such as china running literal concentration camps, disappearing dissents, crushing demands for freedom, overtly trying to force other countries to bend the knee, etc). I have many friends dismiss valid criticisms of China with this exact excuse. If you deny to a Chinese person that they had a massive improvement in their life quality they will laugh at you, because you are denying an obvious lived experience for hundreds of millions of people (basically people in cities).
You're probably being downvoted because this is a nationalistic counternarrative its own right, and we're looking for thoughtful conversation instead of flamewar rhetoric here.
I was hoping it was carefully written enough to not be flagged. I think it's an important debate for the technology community to work through. I do recognize it's a sensitive issue especially (with the risk of racism if not handled carefully).
I hoped it would count as "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon", especially since the United Front Work Department (and the post-1989 patriotic education system) is rarely discussed. In contrast to the featured article, which by itself does not really meet the guidelines for being on-topic (especially since it similar articles have been posted the last few months). Alas.
It's written in the style of a rhetorical diatribe ("indoctrinated from birth", "defeating the CCP's ethno-nationalist agenda", etc.) This isn't thoughtful conversation, it's nationalistic battle, which the site guidelines ask you not to use HN for.
> 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).
> 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...
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.
Change in relative GDP is a very weak argument. A massive productivity boom in other nations (via the Industrial Revolution) doesn't necessary effect a nation's existing production (except when workers they are placed out of work by, eg. the cotton gin)
Theft is theft no matter how justified it may seem and whoever the perpetrator is.
Also the alliance you mention is certainly anglophone, but certainly not limited based on ethnicity.
> 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.
> 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?
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.
> 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. "
> 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.
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 :)
> 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.
> 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.
I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. China was 20% of overseas tax revenue for the British Empire, and the US wasn't selling any notable amount of opium
Pointing out that there were more casus belli than what you think doesn't mean I believe any of them justified the wars. But, Qing China objectively saw the British Empire as lower than them, and objectively refused diplomatic channels that might have avoided this mess due to their perceived racial and cultural superiority. As in many things, it wasn't completely one sided. And yes, the flayed and tortured British Officiers for no reason but to see them suffer.
You are completely clueless as to naval military technology of the time. Steamships did in fact have sails. They only used their steam engines in war situations.
The steamships used in the Opium Wars were literally iron ships. The were superior in every single way to Chinese ships, which literally could not counter them at all. It was total naval domination due to technology, nothing else.
Yes, the fact that the Chinese central government had terrible intel due to the nature of their terrible feudal bureaucracy played a role. However, the British were able to beat down fleets and armies far far far bigger than their own, repeatedly, in enemy territory. Plainly, they won because they had iron ships with the steam engine. That is the product of industrialization.
Your perceived notion of the industrial revolution is wrong, that what you say is the start of the industrial revolution is actually after the end of the industrial revolution.
Also, tea, porcelain and fine china are either raw resources, in the case of tea, or artisan work. They aren't industrial goods at all, and are the hallmark of a poor economy. China in the last 50 years is absolutely not that. While a lot of their goods are of lower quality, they are industrially produced goods, not artisan goods. That's because the CCP, even since Mao, for all their faults, recognized the mistakes of the Qing and began to mass industrialize.
In the age of industrial warfare, economic output matters a huge deal to winning. China was overtaken by the West massively before it got subjugated. If that wasn't the case they wouldn't have let it happen.
I don't understand why there isn't a blanket ban on all Chinese citizens from working at any research laboratories. Let them come here to study but they should be expelled soon after completing their studies and paid their tuition. These Chinese scientists are and will only ever loyal to the CCP. I really can't comprehend why we are actively strengthening our biggest economic competitor who play by NO RULES and are a truly evil regime.
> blanket ban on all Chinese citizens from working at any research laboratories.
... all mainland China's citizens working at any government-funded research labs, yes.
> I really can't comprehend why we are actively strengthening our biggest economic competitor who play by NO RULES and are a truly evil regime.
I have never been able to figure that out either. If all foreign governments played by rules, maybe it'd make some sense (because the institution or company retains the IP), but mainland China's government never has.
> These Chinese scientists are and will only ever loyal to the CCP.
It's not that bad - not all are and many dislike the CCP. The problem is the CCP can order about and blackmail all who have anything or anyone in mainland China.
50 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 124 ms ] threadExactly. 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
"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
The concept of “where” you do or have a thing is well enshrined in law. Here for example knives that are perfectly legal to possess in your kitchen become illegal if you were to walk down the street holding one. It’s exactly the same with some forms of IP, these are often called “dual use” in legal terminology.
> 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.
Looks like the chickens have come home to roost.
There is no secret conspiracy here to bring down wages of researchers. Some people just do it for the likes.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
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.
Biomedical patents are not trivial software patents. Billions of dollars of investment goes into developing a single new therapy. The molecular structure of medicine can often be easily replicated once discovered, so patents are a key part of commercializing new medicine and techniques. (See the CRISPR-Cas9 patent debacle.) Taking the right to patent some work away from the institute it was developed at means theft of the licensing fees derived from the patent, and an impact on an institute's ability to keep funding R&D.
Most universities have a “tech transfer” office that helps with this (the university usually gets a share) and tries to find licensees.
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.....
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
The grey area here is from lack of foundational knowledge surrounding these cells, and your assumptions aren’t useful (nor are they likely, I suspect, to hold). For example, we have no idea if these cells were originally provided to the lab under an MTA, nor any restrictions placed by the funding source.
> Keeping them is just like me keeping my notebooks when I move, even if I haven't finished solving the equations therein.
This is not a grey area: lab notebooks and lab data are generally speaking the property of the lab. The proper procedure is to request permission to create a copy of them when you move to a new institution. Check your university’s IP policy, it should be the governing rule set.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I've written extensively about it:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21195898
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19404162
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21200971
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21195089
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20741930
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20720787
Skew is inevitable on certain issues given that HN demographics are (though highly international) mostly Western. But that doesn't mean that people get to post slurs or use the site for nationalistic flamewar.
The Boston Herald article linked by another commentator suggests that in at least one element this case fits the pattern of others that have been appearing: the accused is receiving funds from the Chinese government under an ostensible scholar program. In some of the other cases, such as with the Thousand Talents program, the scholars signed contracts that agreed to disclose or assign IP only to the Chinese institutions, conceal the source of funding for studies (both to journals or funding agencies), or agree to work at the Chinese institutions in excess of the norms for visiting appointments. The Thousand Talents program and others like it are a coordinated, calculated, and deliberate effort run by the Chinese government, not the accidental missteps of some aloof academics.
doesn't sound like the usual rules for academic funding. I heavily doubt whether the Thousand Talents program really has such a rule. It's the exact opposite of what organizations funding scientific research usually want: getting their name acknowledged in as many papers in prestigious journals as possible, in order to demonstrate success.
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.
> China at its historical peak was never more than a regional power
This is entirely a matter of foreign policy. In terms of production/population/capability, during many periods ancient china would rival/surpass the greatest contemporary empires. I don't think it's appropriate to say "they were not that great" if the main thing that differentiates them from "great" empires is that they didn't pursue a program of unconstrained conquest (and often closely related enslavement/ethnic cleansing).
> the CCP has done more to hold China's development back than western colonialism and the war with Imperial Japan
This is also not very clear. India had opportunity to work with the west/open market/democracy earlier than China yet is clearly falling behind China in development. In fact, I think one of the main reason for such compliance on the part of Chinese populace is that the standard of living really did skyrocket all within single generations. In 2000 people lived incredibly better than in 1980; now entering 2020 people live much, much better than they did in 2000. To disregard the magical transformation in standard of living (especially in urban areas) is disingenuous.
----
At the same time I don't want to detract from what I believe is the main point. The deep ethno-nationalism and the sick man of Asia narrative that the government is instilling in the youths is truly troubling. It blinds seemingly educated people to obvious abuses by the government and casts the specter of "evil US" as a boogeyman justifying terrible Chinese actions. Even many of the Chinese I met in the US still believe in "US constantly acting nefariously to subvert China" story, despite living in the US for years...
On the second point, the CCP certainly deserves a lot of credit for Deng Xiaoping's reforms and the economic expansion since 1978. Though much of the early gains was to undo the Mao's collectivization of rural lands.
This is simply not true. In 1978, start of reforms, GDP per capita was >50% higher than 1966 (start of cultural revolution) [0]. In current dollars it was $104/per capita in 1966 and $155 in 1978 (although there is something funny going on as it was ~$180 both preceding and succeeding years). More important is the miracle streak starting in 1988 where every year was positive.
I think it is important to not diminish Chinese achievement while criticizing China, because by denying their achievements you allow the unconvinced Chinese readers to say "ha, clear US bias and propaganda" and ignore the much more troubling truth about their current government (such as china running literal concentration camps, disappearing dissents, crushing demands for freedom, overtly trying to force other countries to bend the knee, etc). I have many friends dismiss valid criticisms of China with this exact excuse. If you deny to a Chinese person that they had a massive improvement in their life quality they will laugh at you, because you are denying an obvious lived experience for hundreds of millions of people (basically people in cities).
[0] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/gdp-per-capi...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I hoped it would count as "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon", especially since the United Front Work Department (and the post-1989 patriotic education system) is rarely discussed. In contrast to the featured article, which by itself does not really meet the guidelines for being on-topic (especially since it similar articles have been posted the last few months). Alas.
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_(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://www.visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2008/01/20/share-of...
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.
Theft is theft no matter how justified it may seem and whoever the perpetrator is.
Also the alliance you mention is certainly anglophone, but certainly not limited based on ethnicity.
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.
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?
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.
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
> 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.
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 :)
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.
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)
Pointing out that there were more casus belli than what you think doesn't mean I believe any of them justified the wars. But, Qing China objectively saw the British Empire as lower than them, and objectively refused diplomatic channels that might have avoided this mess due to their perceived racial and cultural superiority. As in many things, it wasn't completely one sided. And yes, the flayed and tortured British Officiers for no reason but to see them suffer.
You are completely clueless as to naval military technology of the time. Steamships did in fact have sails. They only used their steam engines in war situations.
The steamships used in the Opium Wars were literally iron ships. The were superior in every single way to Chinese ships, which literally could not counter them at all. It was total naval domination due to technology, nothing else.
Yes, the fact that the Chinese central government had terrible intel due to the nature of their terrible feudal bureaucracy played a role. However, the British were able to beat down fleets and armies far far far bigger than their own, repeatedly, in enemy territory. Plainly, they won because they had iron ships with the steam engine. That is the product of industrialization.
Your perceived notion of the industrial revolution is wrong, that what you say is the start of the industrial revolution is actually after the end of the industrial revolution.
Also, tea, porcelain and fine china are either raw resources, in the case of tea, or artisan work. They aren't industrial goods at all, and are the hallmark of a poor economy. China in the last 50 years is absolutely not that. While a lot of their goods are of lower quality, they are industrially produced goods, not artisan goods. That's because the CCP, even since Mao, for all their faults, recognized the mistakes of the Qing and began to mass industrialize.
... all mainland China's citizens working at any government-funded research labs, yes.
> I really can't comprehend why we are actively strengthening our biggest economic competitor who play by NO RULES and are a truly evil regime.
I have never been able to figure that out either. If all foreign governments played by rules, maybe it'd make some sense (because the institution or company retains the IP), but mainland China's government never has.
> These Chinese scientists are and will only ever loyal to the CCP.
It's not that bad - not all are and many dislike the CCP. The problem is the CCP can order about and blackmail all who have anything or anyone in mainland China.