Well, it's really an honor to host Xiaoxing. He here for virtual colloquium at Georgia Tech. I can say personally. So I met while I was visiting Temple University few years ago where we had a discussion and then very briefly also one Shouxing was invited to give the colloquium at Boulder, where I was a postdoc at the time two years ago. And both of these visits were just before the pandemic. But I was very lucky to get to get to meet twice before we all travel shut down. And since then, I really was thinking and I like all good, I get a chance to have the honor to invite him at some point. This was before I knew I would be coming to Georgia Tech. And now that I know that I am here at Georgia Tech, yeah, it really is a pleasure to get to be the one inviting me to talk to you. A brief introduction as shouting she, as you know, may know, is the recipient of the American Physical Society 2020 Andrei Sakharov crisis. He's the lower age Cornell professor of physics, Temple University. Prior to 2009, he was professor of physics and material science and engineering at Penn State University. He received his PhD in physics from Peking University in Institute of Physics in his Academy of Sciences in 87. And then after several years of research at their cost we Nuclear Research Center in Germany, Belgium Communication Research got Rutgers and at University of Maryland. And he joined the physics faculty at Penn State file. Before it later moving at the temple to his research, has focused on the material physics, which has significant overlap with my quantum condensed matter physics. But when it's somewhat more applied side with oxides horizon, the two-dimensional thin films. Gaussian is the author of over 350 referee journal articles and three US patents in the area of thin films of high TC superconductors, in particular also magnesium dipole, right? He's a fellow of the American Physical Society. And then relevant to the talk you'll give us today. Since 2015, He's spoken out actively for open fundamental research and against racial profiling. So it's really a pleasure and honor to introduce introductions. Let's do it. Yeah. Thank you. It Amar, and I'm glad that things work out fine for you. And Tambo had a hiring freeze soon after the pandemic. And obviously the pandemic still impacting everything that we're doing. Thank you again for inviting me to talk here today. And I enjoy that. I enjoy very much my virtual meeting with faculty members and hopefully I can come visit sometimes in person. The subject of my talk today is the US government's concerns on research security from China and how its current policy is hurting American science islands. To by way of an introduction, I would like to play a video clip of my testimony at recent congressional roundtable. Jerry Raskin, chairwoman to members of the subcommittee, members of payback. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is charging he, I'm professor of physics at Temple University until six years ago, my life story was like many first-generation immigrants. I was born and educated in China and married a paddle graduate student there. In 1989, we came to the United States for better career opportunities and a better life. Years later, and two daughters later, we realized that our home is here and our careers are here. So we decided to become American citizens. America has given me the opportunity to reach a level in my profession that I could not have imagined when I was a youngster in China. My American dream was interrupted or May 21st, 2015 before seven AM, when loud pounding on my door woke me up. I went to open the door and saw many people outside my house. Some were armed and nasa battering ram ready to take them might or an FBI agent show me his badge, asked for my name, and I announced by arrest, another agent term you around and put handcuffs on me. In the meantime, the armed agents in bulletproof fast burst into my house running about shouting FBI, FBI, the appended their guns at my wife and two daughters and order them to walk out of their bedrooms with their hands raised. I was worried how frightening this must meet with them. My younger daughter was only 12 years old at the time. When the FBI agents took me away in front of my family. I had no idea when I will see them again. At FBI's Philadelphia. The Office, I was subjected to be a sampling, a mugshot, and the fingerprinting and the US Marshals Service cell block. I will strip searched at the end of a two hour interrogation. The idea agent finally pull me that I was charged for having made a device called Pocket heater for Chinese collaborator. And said immediately, that's absurd because there was no way it was true. I was released on bail late in the afternoon as we put into our driveway. Yeah, I feel agent was weeding process with a search warrant. But the next two hours, we watched FBI agents searching every corner of our house and the cardinal where our belongings. Based on four emails I had sent from my humble University Address, the government charged me with four come from wire fraud for passing sensitive US company technology, the pocket heater to China. The Chinese were potently fonts. I never share the polyhedra information with anyway, check. The emails I sent were about academic collaboration space on my own, widely published research. They weren't about the parking heater at all. After leading experts in my research field provided David's to affirm, the e-mails in question were not about the pocket here. Grandma, drop the pace of our lives, have been wrecked professionally, emotionally, physically, and financially. One day I was a respected researcher and Department Chair. Overnight, I was painted as a Chinese by all over the news and the Internet and the face the possibility of 80 years in prison and $1 million pot. I could not appear on campus for NACADA, my students, and I was no longer a principal investigator of my research brands. We were isolated and they're worried about my career. I repetition our livelihood, the mounting legal fees, and even my personal safety. Today, we are still living under constant concern that the government is reading my e-mails and listening to my phone calls and anything I do could be twisted as a recent recharged. My research has suffered significantly because of this fear. People have asked me, How can the Department of Justice avoid wrongly accused innocent people like they did in your case? My answer is that they can't, unless they stop considering Chinese professors, scientists than sign. And students. As non traditional collectors are spies for China. Resemble in order criminal cases involving university professors under the China Initiative. The DOJ has shown no evidence 0, that those charged have stolen intellectual properties, yet they are being prosecuted for a felony crimes. I want to emphasize that whether the US and China are in the Cold War, a hot war, it is wrong for that law enforcement to profile Chinese scientist based on where they come from. I applaud the Biden administration for its actions against anti-Asian violence, xenophobia, and the bias. And I call upon it to declare publicly that all Chinese professors, scientists, and students are not non traditional collectors are spies for China. Paying attention. After my appearance, I had the wrong people. A colleague of mine told me what happened to you was unfortunate. But I do not believe Chinese scientist are being singled out for targeting by the garment. For my colleague and anyone who holds such a opinion. I say, let's look at the data. The fact this then my case is not the only failed prosecution of Chinese scientist by the federal government. Before me, there were Sherry Chang, gorging tau, and surely after my case there were Nin Shi, Xin Zhao. They have mesoglea and calling H2O. In July, the garment dropped charges against the Cleveland Clinic researching one, as well as several other cases against Chinese visiting scholars, postdocs, and graduate students. In September, a federal judge acquainted, a University of Tennessee Knoxville professor. I mean, who of all charges against him? It is extremely rare for the federal government to drop charges. However, there have been a large number of dismissed or failed cases against Chinese scientists. The Department of Justice always says, we don't racial profile people. We go after the evidence saying they don't racial profile Chinese scientists, not proof that they adopt the seat and how law professor Maggie Louise caught it. Micro invalidations. Just like a person with sexist view, tells a woman that she is being too sensitive. Let's hear what Congressman Lewis says. And what we do know is that due date, maybe Jesus, including heights, loose ones. We can be just as Cindy got it wrong. Id rightly accuse when holier spines with China. Wrongly one after Sherri Shen, they wrongly one asset professor she and I recently professor who was acquitted. And when you look at this was just one Chase, maybe that's a mistake. But when you have multiple cases, i then it becomes a pattern. And this data from the Committee of 100, that research report is really important. And from our oversight hearings, It's very clear to us that the foreigners justice is engaging in either conscious or unconscious racial profiling or ethnic profiling. And that's why we really need Merrick Garland and his leadership at par justice to take some strong action. When you have multiple cases, then it becomes it becomes a pattern. There is a clear pattern of racial profiling by the Department of Justice in 2018 that DOJ establish a channel initiative to prioritize economic espionage cases related to channel. Naming a Law Enforcement Initiative after country is unprecedented. And the China Initiative places a target on the back of any scientist of Chinese descent. Interview of the FEI as declared in this 2019 FBI publication. High needs students, postdocs and professors are non traditional collectors or spies per channel. Here's the list of reported the criminal prosecutions involving university professors in recent years. I'm presenting them in the order of date, the date when the professors was arrested. The enhanced focus on Chinese are checked in China related cases began before the China Initiative. Actually, it started with the Obama administration. But the number of cases in increased sharply in the last couple of years. If you look at the crimes being charged only to earlier cases, including mine warfare effects of intellectual property. In the red color. Both cases were dropped because they were false. Most recent cases are for non-disclosure of genotypes, shown in blue. Other crimes including irregular travel reimbursement, tax problems, and the visa fraud. The case of Amine, who is most instructive, he was charged with wire fraud and the first statement in February 2020, but failure to disclose his affiliation with Beijing University of Technology, the beach AUT, do nasa in grant applications. A federal law prohibits using nasa funding for collaboration with China. The case went to trial in June of this year. During the trial, UTK officials I had who had in fact disclosed his ties with speech AAUP to the university at various occasions. The FBI agents on whose case made it that he started the case based on Google Search and the Google translation and a suspicion that who was a 1000 patents program participants. After who denied it, he pressed hold to spy on China, which has declined. He then placed who his son under surveillance, but who are no fly list. And the falsely told UK the hole was a Chinese military operative. At the end of the trial, the jury could not agree on a verdict and the judge declared a miss trial. Even with all the problems with the case and the parent's misconduct by the FBI agent. The government decided to retrial whole night in September. The charge acquainted the whole of our charters concerning the wire fraud charges, the judge said that even if poor fail to disclose his ties with speech AAUP, nasa got what he bargained for or did not scheme to defraud nasa. So there is no wire fraud for the false statement charges. The judge said that the disclosure rules were not clear. Even UTK itself, at that nasa China funding restriction does not apply to UTK faculty. The government failed to prove that who knew his statement was false. The judgments are arguments for other people can pretty much apply to all the China initiative, initiative cases based on non-disclosures. They are all on shaky legal ground. Let us hear the perspectives of a former federal prosecutor about such cases. You can wait. Argument that the Department and the Federal Government made in bringing hated you did b to R and out Protecting American intellectual property, taxpayer funded research. And the cases that they have brought should they do not support that theory. They are not theft of trade secrets case, that they are not espionage cases. They are really Grant disclosure, going to disclose cases. And they just have not put forth the evidence that show that any of these researchers were involved with dealing, research, dealing American IP technology and giving it to the Chinese. That has not been an area of criminal prosecution before the China initiative. And they have essentially weaponized grant disclosure as before, were handled administratively by the NIH or by the federal grant, an ATP. They've essentially made beach federal cases what they consider to be espionage or national security tide gauges. All under the umbrella that the unsaid read and watch, these researchers have not done the disclosures properly is because they are non-traditional collectors, are that they are somehow spotlight on campus. Which when you go talk to the researchers, you realize that patently absurd. I mean, most of these researchers will tell you they're not working on classified, fine. They're working on fundamental research. And the point of fundamental research and that you do your research and then it is published for the whole world feet. This prosecutions are not about perfecting American intellectual property. A DOJ has weaponized grant this classroom because he thinks Chinese professors response for triangle but cannot prove it. Now let's look at some tooth the perspective of a former FBI agent. When the Justice Department creates a national initiative that it calls the China Initiative, it creates a pressure on FBI field offices to work cases targeted people who they can put under the umbrella of the China Initiative. So if somebody is only connection to China, Is there their national origin or their ancestry, that's often enough to fit under this umbrella. And my concern is that it promotes racial profiling of Asian people, particularly Chinese people. So if I'm looking skeptically at any time, scientists who are technologists, because I'm working to try and initiative. And I can't find that they have orders from the Chinese government to engage in some kind of misconduct or doing anything could benefit the Chinese government, but simply engaged in some kind of minor misconduct, unrelated, I can still charge those cases and enslave a statistical accomplishment under the Train initiative. Rather than lay insignificant charges of economic espionage were theft of intellectual property. What we see them doing is laying very minor charges, which is both an indication that this isn't a person who was properly engaged in that type of activity that justified the investigation in the first place seems to be part of this disruption strategy that we can't prove that they're engaged in it, it created serious conduct, but because of our bias that this is a problem, we can't be sure. So less release later charges, just stare at the damage then profession added added horse is not an appropriate they could be just spread. It will be due. Panel initiative promotes racial profiling. Criminal charges for things like non-disclosure, irregular air travel receipts or Visa or request are meant to disrupt and the damage changes. Professors. Let's hear what a former US attorney said about the China Initiative. Criminal prosecutions are very individual decisions that have to be made based on the evidence. What happens with initiatives is two things. You get cases that are brought that perhaps should not be brought on the merits. And you also get cases that are smaller and smaller and smaller and disingenuous SLI put into the bucket of fulfilling the initiative for purposes of statistics. So as I said, I'm not going to go easy on the Justice Department on this one. I think they they've thought this has been a terrible failure. I take great objection and offence to the fact that even in their fields, prosecutions, even when prosecutions have to be dismissed, the judge or dropped by DOJ because they are lacking evidence after indictment. That what we hear is, well, the China Initiative is working because more than 1000 researchers have returned to China voluntarily. That is offenses because we don't know why those people went back. And I suspect it's largely because they are afraid of being unjustly targeted by this government. So to say that this sends a message and therefore it's doing something good. That's not what, that's not how we use our criminal justice system. We don't accuse people in the hopes that we will send a message to other people against whom we have no evidence. Carving people without evidence in order to send a message to other is not how we use our criminal justice system. Panel Initiative is a terrible failure. In fact, racial profiling of Chinese scientist was only one of the three lessons I learned from my experience of being falsely charged by the government. The first lesson was that one, the DOJ charges someone for stealing secrets for China. It is not necessarily true. What they say it in my case was totally false. Lesson number 3, we'll start. The DOJ is criminalizing academic collaborations with channel. It was clear to me during my interrogation by the FBI agents that they knew nothing about how science is done. And they saw a routine academic activities as criminal. According to our key DOJ official on the China Initiative, academic collaborations with China is by definition, conveying sensitive information to the Chinese. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of academic research. The fact is that most of us professors do not do secret, are sensitive research. What we do is the so-called fundamental research. The principles of freedom to publish and disseminate is so essential to US universities that most of them do not accept the money if the funding strict restricts its faculty from publishing and disseminating their results. Or our national policy for controlling the results are federally funded research is the National Security Decision Directive 189 issued by President Reagan in 1985. Then SDD 189 define fundamental research as basic and applied research in science and engineering. The results of which ordinarily are published and the shared broadly within the scientific community is that it is the policy of this administration that to the maximum extent possible, the products are fundamental. Research remains unrestricted. If national security requires control, then the research should be classified. In terms of basic research and applied research, there are clear definitions in federal policies and regulations. For example, basic research studies fundamental phenomena and or observable facts without specific applications in mind. Most professors who receive funding from the Department of Defense work on basic research or the so-called 61 research. However, there are people in the government who are trying to restrict fundamental research on university campuses. Right before leaving office, former President Trump issued a national security presidential memorandum and SPM 33, directing federal agencies, universities, and the individual scientists to protect national security in government funded R and D from China, an outsized emphasis was placed on the for disclosure of information that can reveal potential conflicts of interest and the conflicts of commitment. Unless P and 33 was accompanied by the so-called J core report. Wife has guidelines for implementing MSP and 33. In it, you'll find recommendations referring to insider threats, all encompassing disclosures, disclosure upon hiring, reporting to the FBI as quoting foreign visitors and the scholars digital persistent identifier, loaner computer and the pre-travel briefings for foreign travels and so on. This sounds very much like a government by of and lab. The message is very clear. Don't collaborate with scientists in China. On August 10th, 2021, the science advisor for President Biden published a block on research security pain that the White House is working on how to implement and as P and 33, effectively, rigorously and uniformly across the federal government in a way that protects the nation's interest in both security and openness. Again, there is a lot of emphasis on disclosure policies. It is necessary to have clear rules on what professors need to disclose because you cannot charge people with crimes for not following the rules that do not exist or are not clear. However, over-emphasis on disclosure sends a clear message to the scientific community, Is don't collaborate with foreign scientists. The first new research security related policy I have seen since spied an office, is a darpa foreign influence research rubric published recently. It will be used to evaluate the foreign influence risk posed by the SR or key personnels of all funding proposals. So if you have an active affiliation with countries with a history of targeting US technologies, the WH TU as T, which includes Russia and China, you will represent a very high-risk if you have a past affiliation and the present association with Russia or China. Or if you have ties in those countries, which include family, friends, professional, and the financial, then you represent a higher risk. So people like me at least, is at least high-risk simply because I have families and the friends in China. This risk factor will be used in all funding decisions. Here's an example, BAA from darpa. It says that the risk assessment will be applied to all proposals, including for fundamental research. Separate from the scientific review are countering foreign influence program team will conduct a risk assessment using the foreign influence of rubric. And you will be used in making funding decisions. I think for people who are high risk, you can forget about the cutting funding from darpa. I believe other funding agencies may very well adopt the same or similar process as the effective, rigorous, and the uniform policy. Over in Congress. One bill that has a very good chance of becoming law is the United States innovation and competition act of 2021. The bill establishes a directorate for technology and innovation in the NSF and significantly increases it sparked a budget. In section 2303, a provision prohibits funding for participants in government talent recruitment programs off China and North Korea or Russia or Europe. Further, the bill prohibits federal funding from being used by such individuals. Tense, universities use overhead to find the facilities and services. I interpreted this as not allowing these foreign Palin program participants to do anything on US campuses, even if they do not have federal funding. According to Dr. Maria Zuber, VP for research at MIT and the co-chair of the National Academies, National Science, Technology and Security wrong pebble. The current definition of malign foreign talent program is not properly targeted. And the definition that is too broad effectively prevent legitimate scientific work with China. That this bill has a, has already passed the Senate and he has a good chance to pass the House. And that become law of the land. We all know that opened the exchange and the international collaborations are critical for science. Former Los Alamos National Laboratory Director said it perfectly. You don't want to put our research behind high loss. We have to create the secrets. We create the Sikh, we tend to create the sequence. You need a totally different atmosphere than from lacking them up. We had a system at Los Alamos and when I call short fences and high fences, keep as much of the laboratory would short fences. And then the stuff that's really classified, you put high fences around them. But don't put a high fence around the whole place because eventually you won't need a fence because there'll be nothing left inside than others. 11. If you've shut down, open fundamental research pretty soon, you will have no secret to be stolen. In fact, the damage due to the US government's response to resource security concerns has already been done. A recent survey by the American Physical Society. He shows that because of the recent US policy, nearly one in five physicists in the US have either trolls and are being directed but withdraw from international engagements. More than 43 of foreign students and early career scientists. The, the US as an unwelcoming country. And more than 40 percent of international early career scientists. Hey, they are less likely or much less likely to stay in the US long-term. Though the US policy, that's not the only cause immediate harm to those wrongfully prosecuted, like myself and I'm Min-woo, and to many others whose house had been searched, who have been interrogated by the FBI and whole fear to be arrested or indicted on any day. The government's policies are also cutting off the pipelined off talents and Americans, America's future stem workforce. This will cost us to lose its leadership in science and technology faster than anything the Chinese government can do. Some in the current month are celebrating less than two. The NIH stopped with the director boast about his success, aren't a senate hearing. One way that we measure success is by results that we've seen when we identify concerns and see whether or not there are consequences. There have been over a 100 scientists who had been removed from the NIH ecosystem through a variety of ways that resignations, terminations, premature retirement, or internal departments. Also 34 or so referrals to the OIG cancer. I'll mention some successful prosecutions and civil settlements that had been made. Or about a 100 scientists have been removed from the NIH ecosystem. What a great achievement. The Cleveland Clinic researching one is one of those over 100 scientists who had been removed from the NIH, he calls System king Wang were 21 years in a prestigious American lab looking for genes that cause heart disease. Then last year, the FBI came to his door in a 25 page complete, the Justice Department accused of deliberately hiding his ties to a Chinese university. He was arrested and taken to jail. But in July, when our explanation, the Justice Department drop the charges, the latest in a series of prosecutions to unravel the so-called China unit. One is lawyer said that all his client did was make mistakes on forums designed to disclose conflicts of interest. The Cleveland Clinic said in the statement that it fired warning for policy violations. Now he's looking for a year. In China. The US worries they're going to L4 scientists and their ideas and their research back to China. Right base raised to be ball will, will, will move back to China. He adds an edge and yet doing a difference in the Chinese government. We all agree that transparency is essential for scientific research. However, failure to these calls China ties is not a national security crime. The funding agency officials know that taking disclosure of conflicts of company coffee interests and the conflict of commitment seriously is one thing. Aiding the DOJ to build the false case that Chinese scientists are spies for China is a totally different manner. Those who gave up their conscience for expediency and knowingly eight the DOJ in weaponizing nondisclosure to disrupt and damage changes. Scientists bear the same responsibility in damaging American science and technology. Let's see how some universities are reacting when their faculty members are charged for spying for China. While I'm in cool, what's being investigated by the FBI? University of Tennessee funded overhauls, personal files without a warrant, concealing the federal investigation for I'm in missile at nasa, Adobe has to off a federal agent that up, hold up for his eventual arrest and a fire him as soon as he was in handcuffs. According to this Neal's report, then weigh use Grossman School of Medicine has suspended to professors for failing to disclose research and the funding in China. Before any Fung the finding of guilt. And the Harvard began termination procedures against the tenure science professors without interviewing the person about his allegations of non-disclosure? No, We see that just having a husband who works in China can get you fired. Understandably, faculty members of Chinese descent at the Baylor College of Medicine are worried about their job security. I'm glad to see that more and more university leaders and academics are beginning to speak up. In January, more than 200 faculty, MIT has signed an open letter in support of Gong Chen, saying that we're all Gong Chen, the MIT president, came out to defend chain. And the university is paying for his defense. In March, 40 academics, including seven Nobel laureates, Find the ladder to support Farmer Professor Charles Lee, a childhood Ybor thing that such prosecutions will cause the United States global leadership in science and technology. In September, after earning who was acquitted by the federal judge, faculty members at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville mounted a campaign demanding that the university re-instate who was back pay. In fact, poor lost his job because he is a Canadian citizen and a university affair suspended without pay, causing his work authorization to expire. Under pressure, the university finally author who his position back. On September 8th, 177 Stanford professors sent a letter to Attorney General purging the DOJ to end the China initiative. He pointed out that the China Initiative disproportionally targets researchers have Chinese origin. The cases involving academics having nothing to do with the scientific espionage or intellectual property theft. And it is harming the US science and technology enterprise and the future of the US stand workforce. Yet we're also here opposite lysis. This opinion author justifies racial profiling by saying that if it, if it is searching for chinese spies, fbi, of course, we'll look at people who have contact with channel. If the professor has done nothing wrong, why did they conceal their relationships with the Chinese Communist Party? This has long been answered by the JSON report on Family Resource Security, which was commissioned and the endorsed by the NSF is said that Chinese scholars are typically not an acting as representative self. The Chinese Communist Party are the Chinese government and are not necessarily in agreement with the aims, masses, or policies of these institutions. They should be judged on their personal actions or not by profiling based on the actions of China. As I said in my congressional testimony, whether the US and China are in a cold war or hot war, it is wrong for the law enforcement to profile Chinese students, scientists, and professors based on where they come from. Since the Stanford ladder to the attorney general, who 100, 14 faculty members at UC Berkeley, 167 faculty members at my university, and 198 faculty members at Princeton. As science have sent identical or similar letters to Attorney General Garland purging an end to the China Initiative. Some people say that Professor assigning letters is useless. My answer is, what choice do we have? For me? It is crystal clear that this country is moving towards a direction where there will be no academic exchanges with China. There will be few, if any graduate students from China anyway, who collaborates with Chinese colleagues will be severely punished. And professors like me will come from China will become an extinct species. You want to see this becoming, become a real reality and do nothing. If faculty members from 200 US universities all send their ladders to the attorney general who express our abduction. Our voice cannot be ignored. Some people say, if the media pays attention to the problem areas more effective, I agree. And a media well pay attention when we speak up loudly. Here is the proof. Few dispute the Chinese spying in America is a major problem. Critics say the Justice Department's focus on academic institutions is misguided. Hundreds of prominent professor signed a letter to the attorney general saying that the China Initiative amounts to racial profiling aren't the greatest strength is our openness. And if we wind up thwarting the ability of people to exchange ideas, we will not make discoveries. We will not be the leaders. Thought though, people who asked me what can we do? I say that at least starting your own faculty ladder for the Attorney General to urge. And for the China Initiative. This is not only for justice, for scientist stuff Chinese descent, but also for the future of American science. It'll be clear we need to balance open science with resource security. In fact, the JSON report has presented about a solution. After that, a detailed assessment of how China influences America research, which includes reward, deception, quartered, and theft. They didn't include it. It's concluded that these actions occur to some degree, but how frequently they occur, it's not clear. The picture or foreign influence in fundamental research is far from complete by the threat is there? The problem of foreign influenced by China can be addressed within the framework of research integrity, not firewalling all fundamental research. The JSON report made nine recommendations, such as expanding, researching poverty to include for these cultures of actual or potential conflicts of interest and commitment and communicate the requirements clearly to all stakeholders. One of the requirement that is called is violated. The funding agencies and universities to investigate and adjudicate it wears consequences similar to a scientific misconduct. Only one law might be violet. It should a case be referred for the FBI. In my opinion, the United States should follow the recommendations of the jth I report to address the research security concerns. We'll conclude. I would like to play the video off my testimony at a recent congressional here. German foster arranging number overall picture woman Stevens, ranking member wants members of the subcommittees. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Joshua sheet. I'm a professor of physics at Concordia University. I, like many first-generation immigrants from a foreign country. I was born in China and got my PhD degree there in 1989. Well, I think I came to this country because America offered as opportunity science and it was the most work and placing the world foreigners in the United States, career flourished. Our family logger and we became American citizens, were as fraud as any other citizens to calm American home. I remember vividly and find spring day six years ago. I was busy with my teaching, research and might do with these as Chair of the Physics Department. At dinner time, I gave a public lecture for a science festival, admin Irish, and then went to the airport to pick up my wife was returning from overseas trip. My older daughter was home from college for a few days and my 12 years old daughter was anxious about for dental surgery the next morning. By the time we need a plan to visit a seamless grant or a chicken restaurant. We pass me that little. Did we know at a few hours later, I feel like agents will read our house and pick new way. Based on e-mails I had sand through my university anhydrous program and charge me for passing sensitive US company technology device called Pompeii here, the chain, the charges, what pulled me false, I had never share the polyhedron information was anyway in chat. Almost four months later, after leading experts in my research field provided, if it did, it's saying that the emails I sent were not about the puppy heater at all. But my widely published research. The government dropped the piece. But life has been wrecked. On that fateful morning, when I insert the Lord knocks on my door in, the agency, put handcuffs on when the agents point there because I'm a wife and two daughters and ordered them locked out of their bathrooms with their hands raised. I thought why are they doing this? I haven't done anything that warrants this. This operation must cost taxpayers tons of money. Unfortunately, the exact same Early Warning receding was repeated for the University of Tennessee, Knoxville professor, I'm Min-woo. Who was acquitted by a federal judge several weeks ago. And he was played out again for the Cleveland Clinic research or one whose case was dropped by the DOJ. Enjoy when the DOJ uses this much resource going after innocent Chinese scientists, we must ask, are they catching that real spies? Are they spending our tax money responsibly to protect our country? The problem is that law enforcement officials consider a Chinese professor, scientists and students, non-traditional collectors, or spice for China, we are presumed guilty until proven innocent. It is only a matter of time and chance that any Chinese He sent me get the marks of his or her door by FBI agents and be snatched away. Profiling Chinese scientists based on where they come from, ruins people's lives. I know that personally. I'm sure professor who knows it as well. I have no doubts. Professor Cheng Wang knows it. All Chinese professor of scientists and students are not spies for check. They are contributors saw America's economic security and national security. Most professors still fundamental research. As the director has said, most of what we're doing in science, we publish it without any evidence that they have stolen for Chuang, okay, are being charged for failure to disclose their activities in check. And academic collaborations with chain that was once encouraged by the US government and the universities. Selections, input or Chinese government pattern progress. We're celebrate it just selections into a singular, prestigious post progress in other countries. Now, academics face the possibility of criminal prosecution for having responded to these encouragements. This is not fair. Yeah. It has not always been clear at law professors are required to just helps when the policy tool worse, academic collaboration with China has changed. Abruptly. It is only fair to communicate a new policy clarity for everyone. You're throwing people in jail. So let me be clear. Policy that targets Chinese scientists and openness in fundamental research that's not perfect. On my axis recently secured. It makes us less competitive inhibition and less attractive because it's around the world. He threatens the US leadership in science and technology. It must. Thank you. That concludes my talk. Thank you for your attention. Thank you, professor. It is excellent and very moving talk. And it's really amazing to see how fast things are developing, both with the charges dropped and they also with their, their response from universities, as you showed even in the past few weeks. Alright, so this is probably the most timely colloquium in thinking in a very long time. So let's now open the floor for questions. I think we can try when people just unmuting themselves and ask him or otherwise, we can do a raised hand. Icon. Fredrick from physics faculty. Shortage of tech. Dishes been going on. They've been drifting. First of all, Americans fit. In fact, I've college to all my colleagues in China or all natural life colleagues who are born in China. It's embarrassing. But it's one. I gave a little testimonial high work to Georgia Tech at about 12 years ago or 15 years ago, we started getting kinda list of forbidden subject I am now or the correct phrasing if, for example, any Chinese students studying applied math or any student from North Korea, China, Iran that's applied math. National security live on the thing that I've seen. The other thing that kind of an invincible and the wonder how many people have been subjected to that. I had a colleague from Beijing come. I will demand that you would come and be visiting professor in the Department for three month. I will GET method over a year and a half they've always done from day to day. He had taken out from the time that the university, which was at that time thing co-op and the shunting everything, that's fine. They're supposed to send them invitation letter. And then the unknown to me from a building. They have a whole building or wired close to physically called me and said, do not communicate to this person. If my colleague beauty care. Today I communicate, invalidate beneath online once a week to discuss and that nothing. Nothing showed up and he had to change all his plan. He or she doesn't have to change all the plants, had to pay the panel is that all these things happened a couple months before he was supposed to come in with that and laughing. Nobody in school physics was confirmed by this. I told this to my chair and my towel, my colleague. And this is invasive oath. I don't know how many of our colleagues love to. There have been embarrassed administration. And, you know, what happened to this woman who's very high profile, Wow, to lower my Georgia Tech keyword, something by every hour. Somebody, but I was told there was no teeth and ever given by a professor from Kingwell could not come to work because that's our sample. So I just want to really on things that are going on which I find very worried, some very upsetting. And we all agree that it is suicidal, alienating Chinese, our graduate. If you cooperate, he couldn't do anything not stupid for the future of United States. Obviously, people we want to work with the literature and what to help them as a fan and not peacock or field particular. Period. Beyond my care. For it. I think, you know, while we academics, scientists, we all know this is suicide IS your SAT. Heiberg at the more important is to have the public understand that because congress makes laws and to the public or you lack their congressmen that. And that's really what why this is so important that we all need to speak up. We need to educate the public that the policy the policy we have now is we silo as you sat, and that is not an easy job, but the we have to do that. So, you know, all of us have to understand just to excel in your science is not going to be enough. And the environment that we can succeed in science is being destroyed by these policies. If you find a paper with a colleague who actually next postdoc of mine, set up an entire institute and change in university took us four years to create it. It was extremely successful. But suddenly Shenzhen University came on the entity list for something that happened 15 years ago with two faculty members who apparently took something over to China. And the entire university is not the entity list. So I've been instructed by the University of Georgia Tech that is that I cannot go to China at all because even showing my face there, everything is under your control. So even leaving a lapel pin there, they said would be a violation of federal law and could get me in jail. So i've I've made basically I have a contract with them. I've disclosed everything I have a running contact with right now. If the FBI is listening, I do have that. And I have disclosed everything. But I had been instructed very clearly not to set foot in China anymore, nor is my colleague allowed to come here. This institute is entirely fundamental research. It is graphene research, which I championed since the very beginning. So It's a very painful, incredibly stupid move. And I'm not an American citizen science held my touch citizenship, but nevertheless, I'm of course, subject to American law. So any case, so just wanted to bring that out and just entity thing seems to be a, another technique that I'm excluding entire universe use from could be having any relationship with that. Let me first crack you. Even if you are not an American citizen, your work here, your r subtract two of the America. I know. I understand. The There's United States innovation. The computation Act of 2021 very likely will become a law. And according to a very broad definition, Safa, the foreign garment patents are recruited and program pretty much whatever you do with China, you will be forbidden for funding from this country. And according to darpa, US foreign influence risk rubric, you are having current. Affiliation and you will be classified as high risk. Well, I do understand that the funding has been virtually impossible. That's true. Darpa funding has not gone through other fundings and ask for basic research does not go through. And I always tell them that I have a center in China that's going to be part of this. I didn't do it rigorously to make sure that because I saw the clouds in the sky already, that this was happening. So full disclosure, I and you assume best way to make sure that I won't get trapped into some kind of a web of these people are doing well. So I think for many people probably think, wow, that's just not possible. But it is. And so you know, no graduate students from China you think that's not possible. American research will, will, will suffer. Wow. Just, you know, it could very well be possible. So it's really time for all of us to speak up because this is for survival. And this is of course for American science at. So if we don't all speak up, this is where the country is going. Yeah, I thank you. And Goldman then goldman here. I've also heard stories of another sort of pernicious happening in which the FBI will approach faculty, saying that they've had contact. The faculty have had contact with students who are associated with particular universities in China. And those students could be or could not be a spy or looking to divulge or steal secrets. And this chilling effect on not only the faculty, but in principle, the students and the faculty been told not to use names of students in emails, not to. So that's another, I don't know how much you said about students in your beautiful talk. But I think this is another component. Well, in a Congress that there are bills introduced, I will ban all stem students from China. Of course, most of the appeals do not become law, but they can try one time to time and to repeatedly. And as a matter of fact, there is a Pew Research Center survey, 50, 53% of american support limiting Chinese students studying in the United States. So we all got, got older, it got used to that. We may not have her graduate students from China unless we all do something. I have a question. Really very interesting talk and, and one thing I wanted to ask you is, is this support you received or not received from the administration of the university though? What are their stance on what happened in your case? And and I'm talking about this because at Georgia Tech a few months before the end of the Trump administration, we had Mike Pompeo invited by an administration, give a talk here, which, which I watched with my students, some of them from Chinese descent. And this was honestly you're chilling the moment for all of us. So I would like to understand a little bit better in your case, ASU body above the mean. And you know, what do you think we can do to actually convene cell deans and presidents and provost that this is a major, you know, issue. That issue should support and continue to amplify our voices asleep. Yeah, I'd like to give you my talk already. Touch on the issue of university response. And I, Mikey is a singularity. And very few university is reacting the way MIT is. And most universities, like watching University of Tennessee deaths was, in my opinion shameful. But many universities are doing similar things or delete stuff at the university would try to protect its own interest. And so, as a matter of fact, the people at APS, some people are trying to develop a toolkit to help the faculty in reaching out to their administration, requesting transparency of policies in terms of whether the university well, okay. If FBI, they are personal files without warrants or whether urging the university to per pack today, our faculty, I think the university will, will have to care about what their faculty is thinking. All right, So if all their faculties are not happy, like what University of Tennessee faculty, it has demonstrated that the university have to consider it and do something. So right now, I think if you are being investigated by the FBI, don't count around the university to help you. You know, of course, you know, Emory University, this shall generalise case is another good example, right? That they just fire him and then Laura him back, though, that the FBI can arrest the guy. We have a question for me. Yeah. So I would like to start by saying that this is a wonderful talk. It's also very tiny. Candy issue. It's, it's very complicated rate, it's not new, it's been in the past and then close them more recently. It's a height due to the China initiative. But it has happened before in the past. So and you mentioned that, you know, the, the general public has a perception that it's support. Whatever measure that politicians use to block scientific exchange, banned Chinese grad student coming in. All of that. I think the public, to a large extent is not knowing, or sometimes the medium, not necessarily report the correct information. And the politicians, you know, play political games to the game. So India political fights. So it gets complicated. I upright you professor, she, you know, testify the Kung congressional committees and doing those things at the national level and income to talk to us. And so a lot of us walk on locally. And one thing that you said is people who care, are those who know and affected most, right? So, so we as scientists, a faculty member of Chinese descent, of course, we are closest to this. And of cause people might say, Oh, you know, yo, you care because you'll want to wind up being investigated. But then we walk, they say here at Georgia Tech and we provide it, you know, years of service have done good work. And if you've if university Louis this, then there was a, it's a big bow on them. So, so I, I guess most of them, if not all knows about this, but it's not like they are, they don't know. But the problem is that they also worry that the political pressure worry that the funding gets cut at the university level one not so I guess my question to you professor, she is, what is the best strategy to, to, you know, what with or communicate with all, earn the support from from they say at the university administration live. I mean, I heard you say that don't condemn. Why actually openly ask to see if I'm investigating my deck. And he actually said, Yeah, I don't know why something happened. I don't know. It has not been caskets. Well, I think in my case, premise personally asked me my office. In my own case, I was put on leave without pay. This is having and earth from water. I mean, who experience? They put him on unpaid suspension which caused him to lose his work authorization. So there are different degrees of support. So I have to say a temple. It's not MIT, is not the University of Tennessee also. And the, You're absolutely right. We need to educate the public and the public. The impression that came very much from, as you said, some politician, for example, Mike Pompeo. Third at Georgia Tech, that the Chinese Communist Party sent 400 thousand students a year to the United States to steal our intellectual properties. Which is patently wrong because first of all, most of the students are not supported by the Chinese government, right? So we pay them for our TA and or RA. And they are not fans via the Chinese Communist Party. And, and of course, all the students contribute to the discoveries that we're making, right? So, you know, many of us don't do the experiment in the lab and the students do and toe. If we need to speak up. But if you read the ladder sands from the Stanford faculty members, or from Temple, or from Berkeley or from Princeton. You will find that the majority of the people who signed the ladder are not pennies. They are all nationalities are all, or nearly all people of all different backgrounds TO. Indeed we are affected the most directly, but everybody is in it. If we are not allowed to have Chinese students, if we are not allowed to collaborate with colleagues in China. And we all suffer. And American science, I'll suffer. So now we just have to get the word out. And I think one way to do that will be for all the faculty members in all these universities, sign the same later or similar ladder to the Attorney General and make it clear that what they are doing is it's bad for the country. Thank you, Professor. Sure. That military before we let you, before we end equilibrium, I wanted to ask you mentioned a few of those letters, even in the past few weeks, signed by faculty at different universities. Any websites collecting them or showing them? Yes, actually, the Stanford faculty, they put out a website. If you are in front of a computer, you can Google. When that of freedom, I think wind of freedom are winds of freedom are. Here has instructions about how to set up a Google form to collect signatures. And they have their ladder, which if you choose to, you can just, you know, that's what we did. We use exact matter. That stands for sense. Just to change the name of the universities. Unfortunately, pamphlet does not allow us to use tempo ladder had, saw, so we have to, you know, not to use the logo and everything like that. But but otherwise, it's exactly the same ladder. There is instruction there about how to do this. Yes. Good. And I found that website. So thank you very much. We're already at 15 minutes over time. So this will be a good chance to end the colloquium. As a reminder, if you graduate students, you have more time to speak with a professor she graduate students, please, please remain in the discussion. You're welcome to take a break. You know, the EDM, I want to thank you. Okay. And for the opportunity to talk and I will send you a PDF file of my slides that some, some, some people ask for references and solid. So from the slides you'll see all the sources of the information. Okay, Thank you for that, that we'll also very much hope.