Conviction of Harvard University professor underlines Chinese penetration of higher education

Professor Charles Lieber, 60, of Harvard University was convicted in a Federal court in Boston on two counts of making false statements to the U.S. government about whether he participated in the Chinese Thousand Talents Plan and for failing to declare income earned in China.  But had Lieber not taken US grant money, he would still be actively sharing technology with China.

Taking money from the Chinese, openly or covertly, has become part of the modern American university landscape. In late December the Free Beacon reported that Princeton University “has received $4.6 million from CCP-controlled Peking University to fund research hubs for drug development and computer science. Tung Chee-hwa, the founder of the China-U.S. Exchange Foundation has given at least $1 million to fund Princeton’s Center on Contemporary China.”

While there is nothing illegal about US universities receiving funds from foreign sources, including China, a problem arises where US research money puts restrictions on researchers blocking them from such collaboration unless they make a full disclosure and get US government approval.

It is no secret that China invests hundreds of millions, or more, in US universities.  Part of the investment is purely political, to influence US scholars to back China’s global policies.  But another part is squarely aimed at cutting edge technology with serious national security importance.  And, because China is a top down authoritarian system, fields once regarded as strictly civilian, such as developing medical and drug therapies, are closely linked to China’s ruling elites (whose relatives and grandchildren run these industries) and to China’s substantial effort in the field of biowarfare.

Lieber is a specialist in nanotechnologies, a field that is getting billions of investment dollars from the United States government, including the Defense Department (DOD), and from the private sector. The U.S. sees itself in a tense competition with China in this field for both commercial and national security reasons.

This competition, and specifically the potential military applications, are creating considerable anxiety in the U.S. military as China becomes more deeply involved in investment and the possible theft of American know-how and technology.

The specific specialty developed by Lieber and of possible strategic interest to DOD is “mesh technology at nano-scale.” A nano-scale mesh device offers considerable opportunities over rigid electrodes implanted in the human brain. “Lieber,” wrote one medical professional, “has made a huge difference with ultra-flexible mesh electronics, which promise to deliver what he calls ‘precision electronic medicine.’ These hardly activate an immune response, but remain very close to the cells they are intended to spy on.”

Lieber is one of the top scientists involved with Elon Musk in a rather secretive startup company called Neuralink. Musk has invested $100 million of his own money and raised another $58 million for Neuralink, which now has a staff of 90. The company is exploring brain machine interfaces, using what Musk calls “flexible threads” that have the potential of transferring a higher volume of data, according to a White Paper credited to Musk & Neuralink. The abstract notes that the system could include “as many as 3,072 electrodes per array distributed across 96 threads. The threads are 4 to 6 μm in width, which makes them considerably thinner than a human hair. In addition to developing the threads, Neuralink’s other big advance is a machine that automatically embeds them.”

There are many applications of this futuristic technology including improved medical therapies for brain-related disorders and bridging connections between man and machines.

Why would this be of interest to the U.S. military – or to China?

Robotics, artificial intelligence (AI), and nanotechnology are at the forefront of weapons-building programs, with China the main current competitor to the U.S. LTG Robert P. Ashley, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) addressed the subject before the Association of the US Army. He focused directly on China, warning that China is “merging artificial intelligence with humans” using nanotechnology as the connective bridge. DIA, he said, “sees this as a major concern for the future of warfare.”

Using nanotechnology to link the brain to machines and sensors, and AI to arbitrate the linkage, has roots that go back decades and involve the use of drugs and psychological techniques to manipulate the human brain. Horrid experiments were carried out by Nazi Germany on concentration camp inmates. Japan did the same through its infamous chemical and biological weapons operation called Unit 731, which conducted experiments on prisoners. The Nazis and Japanese shared information on the results.

At the end of WWII, under Operation Paperclip, the CIA and Defense Department brought Nazi scientists back to the United States, including many who were engaged in using concentration camp inmates as subjects. One, BG (Generalarzt) Walter Paul Emil Schreiber served in the Nazi Wehrmacht and the SS, where he was involved in assessing results of human testing at Dachau. Once in the U.S., he worked at the Air Force School of Medicine at Randolph Air Force Base in Texas. When his background was exposed by news reporters, the US Air Force slipped him and his family out of the country on a military plane to Argentina, where there were many other former Nazis operating including the killer-doctor Josef Mengele.

Meanwhile, the CIA continued experimenting with humans, using both psychological techniques and psychotropic drugs for another twenty-two years (1953-1975) when brain research activity was apparently discontinued after Congressional hearings by the Church Committee (formally the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities).

The use of “mesh technology at nano-scale” can be seen as an updated version of these earlier egregious experiments by the Nazis, the Japanese and by the US. But it can also be seen as a way of helping those with brain related illnesses improve their functioning and overall well-being.

Had Lieber not taken US government research grants (and presuming he then would have declared his covert Chinese income to the IRS) the US government would not have been able to prevent Lieber’s collaboration with the Chinese.  Today the US does not have any effective way of protecting national security-related technology, or even technology of commercial significance, meaning that technology collaboration with China will continue unregulated for the most part.  This risks US security and causes significant harm to the US economy.