As tensions with China rise, scientists at America’s leading universities complain of stalled research after crackdown at airports
Stopped at the border, interrogated on national security grounds, laptops and mobile phones checked, held for several hours, plans for future research shattered. ⠀
Earlier this month the Chinese embassy in Washington said more than 70 students “with legal and valid materials” had been deported from the US since July 2021, with more than 10 cases since November 2023. The embassy said it had complained to the US authorities about each case. ⠀
“The impact is huge,” says Qin Yan, a professor of pathology at Yale School of Medicine in Connecticut, who says that he is aware of more than a dozen Chinese students from Yale and other universities who have been rejected by the US in recent months, despite holding valid visas. Experiments have stalled, and there is a “chilling effect” for the next generation of Chinese scientists. ⠀
The refusals appear to be linked to a 2020 US rule that barred Chinese postgraduate students with links to China’s “military-civil fusion strategy”, which aims to leverage civilian infrastructure to support military development. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute thinktank estimates that 95 civilian universities in China have links to the defence sector.
Nearly 2,000 visas applications were rejected on that basis in 2021. But now people who pass the security checks necessary to be granted a visa by the State Department are being turned away at the border by CBP, a different branch of government.
“It is very hard for a CBP officer to really evaluate the risk of espionage,” said Dan Berger, an immigration lawyer in Massachusetts, who represents a graduate student at Yale who, midway through her PhD, was sent back from Washington’s Dulles airport in December, and banned from re-entering the US for five years. ⠀
Academics say that scrutiny has widened to different fields – particularly medical sciences – with the reasons for the refusals not made clear.
Removed by mod
Lmao liberals getting mad at (in this case non-existent) “violations” of laws that only exist to protect the capitalist class is always funny
Intellectual property shouldn’t exist in the first place; it kills millions of people every year from patented drugs, etc. and it did so in Africa during covid.
Then you spend the money on research and development with no reward. Let’s see how much new technology gets invented without IP laws.
Capitalist apologia; IP laws only hinder innovation by protecting megacorporations and their monopolies. Most real innovations even in capitalist countries happen from state investment anyway.
The video linked in the previous comment outlines some methods by which workers are compensated for their work instead of capitalists, some of which have been successfully utilized by socialist states like the USSR, and even in capitalist countries in the form of grants, etc.
⠀
Proffessor Richard Wolff also has a video on socialist approaches to development.
Except while the USSR was crumbling, the capitalistic United States wasn’t. Not really a convincing example of a “successful” system.
While I agree that intellectual property has been abused over and over, especially in the last two decades, we need to remember the reason why patents became a thing, and that reason was to promote open research and cooperation.
Without patents the only tool businesses had to protect and exploit their inventions and discoveries was secrecy, which creates a terrible environment for research, full of espionage and subterfuge and without a library of human inventions and research ready for anyone to take and build upon.
It’s somewhat of a necessary evil, a carrot in order to incentivize businesses and individuals to share their research and their inventions, instead of keeping them to themselves in fear of someone else stealing them. It does have issues though, especially regarding the lack of a “fair” use of the monopoly the patent grants for it’s duration.
And, again, I’m talking about patents. Copyright is a whole other can of worms, way worse in some ways.
Neo-liberals are capitalists. They just virtue signal about leftist points sometimes.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Intellectual property shouldn’t exist
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Those drugs wouldn’t be developed in the first place, if there were no IP. The system is not ideal, but I would rather address its issues than destroy everything completely. When hous is on fire, the right thing is put out the fire, not to destroy the town.
Cuba literally developed vaccines without IP nonsense, your argument kinda rings hollow
It is not impossible, but are you seriously want to compare pharmaceutical advancements of Cuba and US? You can even compare USSR and USA at the time. USSR medicine was significantly behind.
Cuba has 3% of the population of the US. I think it is fair to say they have disproportionately more medical advancement than expected for their population and wealth level.
I am not sure “advancement per person” is right metric - the more advances the much harder to make those. This is why I was suggesting to compare it to USSR - fair comparison.
Cuba is incredibly farther ahead than the US in the medical field
Source? I would like to see how cuban pharmaceuticals are more advanced than that in US. Until you show concrete proof, I will say this is made up statement.
https://iacenter.org/2023/01/19/despite-the-blockade-cubas-health-care-system-is-extraordinary/
That does not compare advancement in pharmaceuticals at all. It only say that it has good healthcare system. Which I agree is better than in US in coverage, but that’s it. If US had universal healthcare, it arguably would be better, but it says nothing about the need to drop IP. To my knowledge US pharmaceuticals is simply leading in the world, not even comparable to Cuba. Again, comparison with USSR would be better, at least they were of comparable size, and this comparison is still in US favor by large degree.
Your comment is pretty ridiculous when you consider that multiple times in history, the scientists who invented vaccines or treatments that saved millions of people put those inventions into the public domain.
The idea that without capitalism, there is no innovation, is ridiculous. Capitalism is a fairly new idea in history, you’ve just fallen for the propaganda.
Sure, some medicine would be developed, not claiming that there would be none. But there would be less. Profit motivation is one hell of a drug (pun not intended). Compare USSR and USA at the time. It is actually incomparable in terms of advancement of drugs and medical devices and even dentistry. What kills is absence of universal insurance, not presence of IP.
And yet compare life expectancies and you find a very different story. Why is that?
Check your facts: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1248540/us-ussr-life-expectancy-at-birth-cold-war/
Interesting! I just assumed because communist states like Cuba and China have higher life expectancies than the US that the USSR would too, I guess I didn’t consider how much less developed they were than modern communist states.
China does have a higher life expectancy than the US, but still a lower one than most other capitalist nations. You are wrong about Cuba, it still has a lower life expectancy.
The fire is the capitalist laws like IP; the “hous” is a country’s development. So yes, the fire should be put out.
People hate saving others, you really have to give them so many incentives to care. /S
Yeah, it’s terrible how capitalists and their megacorps might not profit as much if that’s happening…
(which it isn’t these days btw; countries like the US and China violated bullshit british IP laws when industrializing, and they don’t really need to do that once they are industrialized)
You are making it sound like China and its large corporations weren’t also very interested in profits and market domination.
That’s included in the “industrializing” part, no?
Under capitalism, industrialization and therefore “market domination” realistically means ignoring the laws meant to keep competition down.