Historical interview: the following preserves the research experiences and personal views expressed in the original manuscript.
Recently, incidents of Chinese scholars receiving unfair treatment in the United States have repeatedly occurred, including cases described as unjust deportation or imprisonment.
Chinese scholars, how are you doing amid tense China–US relations?
1 How much does conflict between China and the United States affect your studies and work?
Luna: I have not been back to China for several years, so it has not affected me greatly personally. The only effect is that I now need to be more cautious when considering a return. My visa has also expired, so under the present circumstances I am not planning to go back for now. Returning would require obtaining a new visa. An adviser in the university’s international office suggested that I not apply at this time: the international situation is not very good, and I am close to graduating, so the visa could be refused or I might be denied entry on arrival. The university could not help me in that situation, so the best option for now is not to return.
Dandelion: I think the current tension in China–US relations has had a major effect across many fields, especially with longer-term consequences for China. Personally, my project itself is progressing smoothly, but the main effect is an extended project schedule. The original plan was for another scholar from China to continue the second half of the research after I left. Because of the relationship between the two countries, however, the institution in China considered the situation uncertain and politically risky, and canceled staff deployment before the end of this year. Other colleagues were also originally going to visit the United States for exchanges on other projects, but those exchanges have now stopped, with no clear date for resumption. These factors also affect progress on some of our research projects in China.
Eureka: I think the conflict has had a substantial effect on me. I leave the United States relatively often, so it is frustrating. My field is considered “sensitive,” making each visa application particularly troublesome: I am always subjected to additional checks, and I worry about being refused entry whenever I arrive.
[The last time I arrived in Boston, I went through passport control before collecting my baggage. Normally, they open your passport, look at your flight details, stamp it, and let you collect your bags. When it was my turn, the officer told me to wait and follow him, and temporarily closed his window. A staff member took me to a small interrogation room and made me sit waiting. They opened all my bags, searched my belongings, and asked why I had come. I said I was doing COVID-19 research and had come to “help America.” They were not satisfied: because I was Chinese and studied biochemistry, they considered me potentially harmful to the United States, perhaps a spy. They repeatedly questioned me for just under an hour. None of the questions really got to the point; they kept going in circles: “You are Chinese, right? Why are you here?” Another person would arrive and ask the same things. They had no substantive evidence, only questions about whether I was a good person. It was both ridiculous and infuriating. They wore me down, gave me no water, did not let me use the bathroom, and kept me there as if interrogating a criminal. That was very frustrating.]
Their strictness is not only recent: US visas have long been demanding for Chinese applicants. Tourists and people in other fields may not be affected much, but those in sensitive areas such as nanotechnology, chemistry, and materials are scrutinized particularly closely. Visa issuance is demanding, and you are questioned again when entering. I do not know the exact reason. Not everyone has to go through this, but quite a few people are questioned and have their computers and hard-drive data checked. The conflict makes me feel afraid to go anywhere. Since I finally have a chance to stay here and do research, I will keep working for now and leave after completing it.
2 Do border checks have anything to do with a country’s reputation?
Eureka: I do not think they have anything to do with national reputation.
Dandelion: I think they are closely connected with your research field.
Eureka: yes. They are not checking whether you have committed research fraud; that is not something customs officers can determine. They are simply checking whether you are a so-called academic spy, with an attitude of wrongly targeting a thousand rather than letting one slip through.
3 Does academic espionage exist?
Eureka: I have genuinely never seen it. I think we are singled out because our country’s overall level is closest to theirs.
Dandelion: to some extent, I think “espionage” is a label the United States applies indiscriminately to restrain China’s development, rather than the driving force behind China’s rapid scientific and technological progress. Our field, pathology, belongs to public health, and its development benefits everyone’s health. There is clearly no need to obtain information through espionage; imposing barriers instead runs counter to universal values.
As for other technological fields, Yuan Lanfeng’s program “The Real Strength of Chinese Science and Technology” presents a series of comparisons between Chinese and US research capabilities. For example, Nature Index analyses of basic research show China closely following the United States in many areas. In applied science, patent numbers—particularly invention patents—also indicate that China’s strength is second only to that of the United States and that the gap is narrowing. The data can indeed give the impression of China catching up step by step. Any country would feel pressure under such circumstances, because before long it might no longer be able to order China around or exploit it at will.
I think this trend has largely made the United States nervous and less confident than it was after World War II. In recent years it has therefore taken a series of defensive, conservative steps, including finding an espionage pretext to frame Chinese scholars. Perhaps it believes this can slow the trend and serve its overall national interests, but such behavior is certainly unfair to individuals.
4 Are you satisfied with the political atmosphere at your institution?
Luna: personally, I could say both yes and no. On the positive side, most of us live within research institutes or universities, where people are protective of minority students. Our university has many awards and grants specifically for minority students, and people care about diversity. Chinese people are not treated as a minority, however, because others see us as smart and successful in research, and there are too many of us to receive special support. I have never seen a grant specifically for Asians, at least around me.
I do not think we need special protection, but we also do not receive many advantages. Many Chinese people around me have achieved excellent research results, yet when we compete for awards alongside Americans, the awards generally do not go to our Chinese classmates. Perhaps Chinese people are relatively modest while Americans express themselves very well, but it often feels unfair.
Dandelion: the influence is subtle. After news emerged about a prominent Harvard scholar being treated unfairly by the US government, my supervisor did not say anything explicit to us, but we could sense an effect on the number and pace of offers being considered for scholars from China. He would ask Chinese scholars whether they had other funding sources and similar questions. There was no obvious change for people already in the laboratory, or perhaps any such change was smaller than the effect of the pandemic.
Eureka: satisfaction with the political atmosphere depends on the gap between your expectations and reality. If your expectation is simply not to face open assaults, insults, or oppression of Chinese people as in the nineteenth century, things have certainly improved: at least discrimination is not overt. Chinese researchers are invited to collaborate when work is discussed, and credit is distributed fairly. If, however, you hope Chinese people can enter centers of power and have political influence like other minority groups, or even like white people, it is less satisfying. Put simply, the political position of Chinese people provides basic subsistence but not yet comfortable prosperity.
Our institute has a very strong political atmosphere, our department is more activist, and our laboratory is the most activist of all. Students and postdocs in our department are keen to participate in political movements and launch petitions. During the Black Lives Matter movement, a white student in our group led other white students in the department in arguing that the department had previously treated Black people poorly. Like the petition movement associated with the Hundred Days’ Reform in China, they pressed the leadership to apologize publicly, acknowledge inadequate care for Black people in the department, and promise greater attention. I cannot say whether this overcorrected the situation, but I think it may have led them to pay somewhat more attention to people of other races besides white people.
The place where I work is relatively international and has long been very left-leaning politically, presenting itself as free and democratic. It depends on how high your expectations are. If we expect the same political standing as in China, that certainly does not exist; the standing of an ordinary employee does.
Luna: supervisors and people in the laboratory quietly signal very left-leaning politics, so personally I really have not seen obvious discrimination. But Chinese and Indian people alike tend to cluster together. Sometimes we do not like communicating with people from other countries, or speak Chinese directly in front of them. That is not particularly helpful for international integration.
Eureka: most people in academia are fairly left-leaning, relatively grounded in facts, and judge people by their contributions. They do not go excessively far with political correctness, nor are they strongly white-supremacist.
5 Can nationality lead to unfair treatment in research?
Luna: overt examples are relatively rare. I do not decide whether to collaborate based on nationality; I consider what the person is like. Previously, a student from ** wanted to rotate in our laboratory after arriving. The student was scientifically very capable, but my supervisors thought the student relied too much on others and ultimately did not accept them. Personally, if another person from ** came, I would not judge them in the same way.
Eureka: you can subtly feel differences caused by cultural separation or racial differences. American students are more willing to spend time with students from Europe or South America, while Chinese students mainly spend time with Chinese students, Koreans with Koreans, Japanese with Japanese, and Vietnamese with Vietnamese. These divisions are fairly clear.
Scientists from some countries are in a worse situation than Chinese scientists: Iran, for example. Another answer affected by survivor bias is North Korea, because North Koreans cannot come at all. For Iran, the reason is purely political. At my previous institution in Canada, there were many Iranians who could not go to the United States and therefore went to Canada first. Canada is relatively open.
Dandelion: unfairness in research takes many forms. Have you obtained the resources you wanted? Have others taken your results without doing the work? I think the United States is a country where influence matters: you need to fight for yourself, speak up, and defend your interests. It is a negotiation. Chinese people may be less skilled at expressing themselves, or not express themselves sufficiently, harming their interests. That is something we need to improve. The system already leans significantly toward disadvantaged groups, and the squeaky wheel gets the grease; Chinese communities therefore need to speak up more and pursue their interests.
6 Do international political relationships affect research projects?
Eureka: I have experienced this personally. Last year, a collaborator and I applied here for an NIH project on COVID-19 testing. During implementation, we needed to contact many suppliers or manufacturers to produce testing equipment. Comparing options, we found US companies usually quoted very high prices without necessarily providing better service than Chinese companies. Our preliminary communications with several Chinese companies were smooth; even receiving goods shipped by sea from China was faster than ordering from a company in a nearby US city, and cheaper too. It was truly good value.
From a budget perspective, we certainly wanted to work with Chinese companies. When we reported this to our leaders early on, however, they said they did not want too many connections with Chinese companies because of a possible loss of so-called US intellectual property. To avoid potential future trouble, they thought it best not to use Chinese products now. We reluctantly chose local companies instead, although we could still use Canadian or Japanese products. The most ironic part was that my collaborator and I were both Chinese, and the whole idea came from Chinese people. I feel sorry for the Americans: better products could speed up production and development, and the product was intended for Americans, yet the United States simply did not want Chinese products. What could we do? It felt like abandoning something valuable out of excessive caution, losing the greater benefit over a lesser concern.
Dandelion: the effect is obvious in certain fields involving national interests.
7 Should academic exchanges take national interests into account?
Eureka: personally, I do not think my field involves core national strategic interests, so I favor sharing openly, apart from ordinary research conflicts of interest. If a project is driven by national interests, however, those interests should be considered, and I fully support treating it differently. Research certainly has national boundaries, but in civilian fields or those involving human health, I support unconditional sharing.
For example, a US agency called DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, has provided substantial funding to Harvard and MIT but does not allow them to publicize it. Students or supervisors presenting related projects cannot display the logo, and review is very strict. DARPA funding is difficult to obtain, but its achievements are striking: GPS and the World Wide Web we use came from it. Its academic investment return is 60,000%, which is very high.
Editorial check: ARPANET, supported by ARPA, was an important precursor to the Internet; the World Wide Web was created by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN in 1989. These are distinct achievements. The “60,000%” figure in the original statement has no cited calculation source and should not be treated as a verified return on investment.
Dandelion: I agree completely. I study diseases, tumors, and projects related to human health, which are relatively universal. If exchanges can promote the discipline or benefit medicine, they benefit all humanity, so why restrict them? This research should be shared unconditionally.
Luna: my view may differ somewhat. National interests should of course be considered. Even in life sciences, academic exchanges and presentations are fine, and published results can certainly be discussed.
But I do not support sharing unpublished results without reservation with people from other countries before publication. It brings us little benefit, and if something happens we may lose out. We should prioritize complying with laws and regulations.
8 Have China–US relations affected your career plans?
Eureka: they certainly have. As a Chinese person in the United States, I feel little belonging and considerable loneliness, so I am considering leaving to work elsewhere, perhaps Canada, Europe, or China. I also do not think the Biden administration will truly change its strategy toward China, so there is no need to remain here waiting. Maintaining lawful status in the United States—obtaining visas and a green card—is also very difficult now. I feel I have no chance of obtaining a green card. Quality of life in the United States is not necessarily higher than elsewhere. If the overall political environment is poor and living conditions are ordinary, changing countries is a reasonable possibility.
Luna: I still lean toward staying in the United States. There are already few Chinese people where I live, and I do not especially need a large Chinese community around me. US politics is now highly polarized, however, and I do not expect the Biden administration to do anything particularly different. If it moves too far left over the next four years, conflicts may grow. In that case, why not consider somewhere more harmonious, such as Europe or Canada?
Dandelion: China–US relations have relatively little effect on my career plans because I already work in China and am a physician. I do not have a US medical license, so the likelihood of working in the United States is very low. From the perspective of competition between major powers, though, I do not think the trend in policy toward China will change much, because China has continued developing upward in recent years. We will need to adapt or make careful choices over a long period.
9 What can we do about the current unfavorable situation?
Eureka: my outlook is rather pessimistic. As an individual Chinese person, I do not think there is much chance of winning a political argument with Americans in the United States. We need another route: only by becoming stronger than the United States can we have greater influence in negotiations. Only when our country becomes stronger and the academic level of the Chinese scholarly community rises might they reconsider how they see us.
Luna: I agree. Once we are strong enough ourselves, we have nothing to fear. Individually, however, the current environment creates great pressure, so we need to be more careful than usual. For example, disclose conflicts of interest in advance. Many people previously took experimental samples when returning to China; in this environment we need to be very cautious and avoid giving others grounds to act against us. Starting with our own conduct gives us a stronger basis to support Chinese people.
Dandelion: if you are already a US citizen, you can do more, such as influencing your local community or city. That is worthwhile, although it is costly in time and energy. I think it will be a difficult, lengthy process requiring preparation for the long haul. We should also recognize progress relative to the past: the US government once took extreme measures against Japanese Americans. After reflecting on that history, it should not take such extreme steps again, but we still need to prepare psychologically to face and adapt to changes in the environment while doing all we can to speak up, defend our rights, and seek a fair living environment.
PhD participants: Luna, Dandelion, Eureka
Editors: Honey Peach Oolong, Fantuan
Interview: Eureka
Audio recording: Calorie
Additional sources checked
Sources and editorial history
Restored from a complete historical article exported from the PhDSciNet Official Account.
Editorial revision: Editorial check: ARPANET, supported by ARPA, was an important precursor to the Internet; the World Wide Web was created by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN in 1989. These are distinct achievements. The “60,000%” figure in the original statement has no cited calculation source and should not be treated as a verified return on investment.
