Case Study: The United States Vs Charles Lieber

photo courtesy: author

In this case study, we examine the United States’ continuous institutional efforts to address its concerns regarding China’s pursuit of technological independence. While the US views this as a counter-intelligence program to protect national security, the Chinese government views these actions as a strategic threat to its technological advancement.

Case:

On January 28, 2020, Professor Charles Lieber, who chairs Harvard University’s Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department, was taken into custody, along with two other Chinese nationals, in connection with three separate cases related to China (DOJ, January 2020). Lieber was charged with making false statements to federal authorities, as he had claimed to investigators that he had not been invited to participate in China’s Thousand Talent Program.

On June 9, 2020, a United States District court indicted Dr. Lieber on two counts of making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001), which were as follows:

• on January 10, 2019, he willfully made a false statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the United States government,
• on April 24, 2020, he caused Harvard University to deny his participation in China’s Thousand Talents Program to the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”).

Involvement in China’s Thousand Talent Program has led to legal issues for multiple US scientists amidst the ongoing political tensions between the two countries. Turab Lookman, a former scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, pleaded guilty in a federal court in Albuquerque in the same year as Charles Lieber’s arrest, to a charge of making a false statement to a government investigator regarding his involvement in the program (DOJ, January 2020).

Mr Leiber vs Mr Lookman

Turab Lookman faced indictment on three counts of providing false statements to the federal government, including lying to a counterintelligence officer. Similar to the case of Prof. Charles Lieber, Lookman was charged with making a false statement by answering “no” to the question of whether he had been recruited, applied for, and accepted into the Thousand Talents Program for monetary compensation.

Both Lieber, an expert in nanotechnology, and Lookman, a computational physicist, had received financial compensation and perks from a Chinese recruitment program, but had failed to disclose this to the US government. While being affiliated with the Thousand Talent Program is not necessarily against the law, Lookman pleaded guilty for not revealing this information, whereas Lieber, who was still employed by Harvard University, had applied for funding from the US Department of Defense and was required to disclose any foreign government or university funding he received.

Turab Lookman was given a sentence of five years of probation and a $75,000 fine for providing a false statement to the Department of Energy on Sept. 11, 2020. Lookman’s probation will be served in New Mexico. Meanwhile, Charles Lieber has continuously pleaded not guilty to all charges and maintained his innocence throughout the legal proceedings. His trial is scheduled to proceed after his attorney ruled out the possibility of a plea.

Tackling Economic Espionage

The advent of globalization and the decline in customer and employee loyalty, along with improved information flows, have made it increasingly difficult for the United States to safeguard its trade secrets. According to Hediah Nesheri (2004), a Professor of Criminology and Justice Studies, intellectual property (IP) inventions and innovations have been the primary driver of economic growth in post-industrial societies. Furthermore, there are assertions that the largest transfer of wealth in modern times is happening from the west to the east.

In an effort to tackle these issues, the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) was enacted by the United States Congress in 1996. Despite being in effect for a quarter of a century, it is noted that “the United States is facing an epidemic of economic espionage with rampant theft of trade secrets” (Reed, 2016).

The U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs released a report in 2019 that examined the threats to the US research enterprise posed by China’s talent recruitment plans. The report contended that research funded by US taxpayers has played a role in China’s global ascent in recent decades. To achieve its goal of becoming the world leader in science and technology, China is attracting leading scientists and experts from across the globe to advance its “national security interests.”

The Thousand Talent Program Debate: Reversal of the Brain Drain from China

Hannah and Allen (2018) and other academics argue that the Chinese central government launched the Thousand Talents Plan to address the issue of brain drain. The term “brain drain” refers to the outflow of skilled and educated individuals from a particular society (Baldwin, 1970), which has adversely affected many communities around the world, especially non-Western nations since the end of World War II. These regions have frequently sent their students abroad to learn from more technologically advanced countries, resulting in the permanent emigration of many highly skilled individuals.

It appears that the People’s Republic of China has been paying attention to this type of outflow since the country’s opening up and the adoption of various economic reforms in the 1970s. To address the outflow of top talent, the government launched its “Recruitment Program of Global Experts” in 2008, commonly known as the “Thousand Talents Plan.” The program’s objective was to “reverse 30 years of brain drain” and to significantly enhance the country’s human capital “through inward migration,” as stated by Hanna and Allen (2018) and other scholars.

The Recruitment Program for Young Professionals, also known as the Thousand Youth Talents Scheme (TYTS), was launched by the Chinese government in late 2010 with the aim of targeting young Chinese scientists who are overseas. Despite the difficulties of adjusting to a new environment, these young scientists have continued to make significant contributions to their affiliated institutions. According to some Chinese academics, the efforts of these returned experts and scientists have led to the internationalization of Chinese higher education and have been a major force in promoting knowledge exchange and global connectivity. (Li, Yang et al, 2018)

The MICE Theory of Recruitment

The recruitment of scholars and experts of foreign origin has been facilitated by attractive pay and various remunerations. The MICE theory, which explains how agents are recruited based on Money, Ideology, Compromise/Coercion, and Ego, may also be applicable to the case of Prof. Lieber and other American experts who are enticed to work for foreign governments, whether allies or adversaries. The easiest motivator, financial gain / money, might have played a role, given that Lieber received a $50,000 monthly salary, $150,000 in annual living expenses, and more than $1.5 million to establish a second laboratory in Wuhan as part of the Thousand Talent Program. Another motivator could’ve been Dr Lieber’s ego — another prevalent driver in this case.

Consequently, Prof. Lieber’s ‘Preliminary Statement’ filed on 9/30/20 at the United States District of Massachusetts, (Boston), argues: “the case against Professor Charles Lieber is a product of the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ’s”) China Initiative Task Force. The government trumpeted Professor Lieber’s case in numerous interviews and statements concerning the China Initiative, noting observations from the Intelligence Community about conduct that DOJ sought to deter. Yet, in discovery, the government failed to produce any materials concerning the China Initiative, which are critical to prove that Dr. Lieber’s conduct was not criminal. The Court should order the government to produce these materials.”

Note

Instead of using the RASCLS framework proposed by Dr. Robert Cialdini in 1984, which offers six influence factors for agent recruitment, I utilized the MICE framework to analyze Professor Lieber’s intentions and psychological motivations. I learned about RASCLS from Randy Burkett’s paper after submitting my case study. Burkett argues that Dr Cialdini’s RASCLS offers more nuance and perspective compared to the outdated MICE framework, which he suggests has “outlived its usefulness.” RASCLS includes factors such as reciprocation, authority, scarcity, commitment (and consistency), liking, and social proof that can be used to motivate potential agents to agree to spy and improve the productivity of existing agents.

Bibliography

• Baldwin James. “Brain Drain or Overflow?” Foreign Affairs. 1970. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1970-01-01/brain-drain-or-overflow
• Burkett Randy. “Rethinking an Old Approach An Alternative Framework for Agent Recruitment: From MICE to RASCALS.” Studies in Intelligence. Vol. 57, №1 (Extracts, March 2013).
• Caldini, Robert. “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.” William Morrow And Company, New York. 1984.
• Kim, Hanna; Ryan Michael Allen. “Localizing cures for China’s brain drain ills.” International Journal of Comparative Education and Development; Bingley Vol. 20, Iss. 1, (2018): 16–32.
• Last, T.S., Albuquerque Journal. “Probation for former LANL scientist in lying during investigation.” September, 2020.
• Li, Yang et al. “Translating transnational capital into professional development: a study of China’s Thousand Youth Talents Scheme scholars.” Asia Pacific Education Review (2018) 19:229–239. April, 2018.
• Nair. Mira, Wang. Andy. “ As Scientists Rally to His Defense, Lieber Rules Out Plea Deal, Plans To Stand Trial.” Harvard Crimson. March 2, 2021.
• Nature. “Harvard chemistry chief’s arrest over China links shocks researchers.” February, 2020.
• Nesheri, Hediah: Economic Espionage and Industrial Spying, Cambridge, 2004
• Reid, Melanie, “A Comparative Approach to Economic Espionage: Is Any Nation Effectively Dealing with this Global Threat?, University of Miami Law Review Vol. 70, 2016 pp. 757–829
• United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, Case 1:20-cr-10111-RWZ Document 56 Filed 09/30/20. “United States of America Vs Charles Lieber.”
• United States Department of Justice. “Harvard University Professor and Two Chinese Nationals Charged in Three Separate China Related Cases.” Tuesday, January 28, 2020
• United States Department of Justice. “Former scientist from Los Alamos National Laboratory pleads guilty in federal court to making false statement about involvement with Chinese government technology program.” Friday, January 24, 2020
• United States Department of Justice. “Former Employee At Los Alamos National Laboratory Sentenced To Probation For Making False Statements About Being Employed By China.” September 15, 2020.
• United States District Court. Indictment. “United States of America vs Charles Lieber.” June, 9th, 2020.
• United States Senate: PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Staff Report.” Threats to the U.S. Research Enterprise: China’s Talent Recruitment Plans.” 2019.