Safeguarding Integrity and Collaborations: Not “Either-Or” but “Both-And”


Today Science published our letter “Safeguarding integrity and collaborations,” which summarizes our perspectives on NIH efforts to address long-standing foreign interference threats, many stemming from foreign malign talent recruitment programs. We are grateful to Science for publishing our letter and for endorsing our efforts to “talk more openly.”

We described our concerns in this venue on July 8, 2020; we have also assembled a content-rich foreign interference web site which includes case studies, disclosure requirements, processes for handling allegations, data, and a compilation of notices, statements, and reports.  

The main points we make in our letter are:

  • NIH began addressing foreign interference concerns in May 2016, long before the Department of Justice launched its entirely separate “China Initiative.”
  • We understand concerns about racial, ethnic, or political targeting. The disproportionate number of cases (which altogether account for < 1% of all NIH-funded principal investigators) linked to China likely stem from the extensive reach of Chinese talent recruitment programs, which explicitly target ethnic Chinese scientists.
  • There should be no conflict between rigorous integrity oversight and international collaborations. This is a false dichotomy. As we write, “Proper collaborations do not entail stealth employment, duplicative funding, undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, or the repeated recitation of lies to institutional or government officials.” These behaviors, which deny funding to scientists who act with integrity, have often occurred at the instigation of foreign talent recruitment programs.

I encourage those of you who are interested in learning more to read the letter and to look at our web site. We are posting a longer version of our essay as well as a summary sheet that includes general principles, case studies, information about select publicly known cases, and findings of others (Congress, Office of the Inspector General, Government Accountability Office) who have scrutinized our work. We are continuing to work closely with Federal government colleagues to, as we write, “envision a framework that secures trust and integrity while enhancing all that robust international collaborations have to offer.”


  1. Undisclosed foreign funding of a select pool of foreign investigators in the USA has allowed those investigators to engage with their shadow foreign labs so as to accumulate an abundance of off-shore generated preliminary data prior to an R01 submission. This places all honest domestic investigators (especially early stage) at a great disadvantage when competing for NIH funding. This subterfuge has been common knowledge for the last 10-15 years.

    1. At one place the speeding limit is 50, if the police ignores everyone who drive more than 70, but pick up those who drive at 50.1 if they belong to a certain race, there is a big problem.

      1. Really?! What was the “race” of the Harvard professor (CL) who got convicted of accepting and not disclosing funds from a CCP-supported entity?

Before submitting your comment, please review our blog comment policies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *