On June 12, 2020, Science Magazine reported that fifty-four scientists have lost their jobs as a result of NIH probe into foreign ties. Six questions are raised from the report about the National Institute of Health (NIH) investigations

1. Due process? 

What rights do the scientists have in terms of defense and representation? How are they informed and explained about these rights? How consistent is the decision process from case to case and from institution to institution? Are the standards public and publicized? How well are the scientists informed about these standards?

2. Shift and transparency in policy?

As recently as July 1, 2014, current NIH Director Francis Collins spoke in Fudan University in Shanghai to promote international collaboration. This and similar reports have apparently been removed from the NIH website with one exception of this report about NIH leaders celebrate 30 years of research with China in 2009. Why were these reports removed? When did the shift in policy take place and why? How were the scientists notified of the change in policy?

3. How did NIH start these investigations? 

According to Page 19 of The Cancer Letter on April 26, 2019, Michael Lauer, NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research, stated that there are three ways to identify potential problems: (a) FBI and other law enforcement agencies, (b) anonymous complaints, and (c) stewardship of NIH program staff. For the targeted 189 scientists at 87 institutions, what is the respective count by these three ways? How is their pattern and distribution similar or different from previous years?

4. Criminalizing science and scientists? 

If the NIH is under pressure from the FBI and law enforcement to conduct these investigations, does it undermine the standard NIH procedures to deal with scientific ethical and integrity issues that may not be intrinsically criminal? How many of the scientists under NIH investigations conduct open fundamental research and how many on sensitive research that threatens national or economic security? Does their punishment fit the alleged act? What was actually stolen?

5. How will the NIH investigations enhance U.S. leadership in science and technology?

Dr. Xifeng Wu was among the first scientists forced to leave MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. She is now recognized for her significant contributions to manage the COVID-19 pandemic in China. She is a U.S. citizen. Her family still lives in Houston. How did her departure help U.S. leadership in science and technology? Same question for the 54 scientists. What threats have we mitigated by their departures?

6. Oversight and accountability?

Is NIH open to third-party independent audit and review about the standards, process, and decision about these investigations? If so, would NIH cooperate with Congress and scientific/community organizations to conduct such audit, review, and oversight?

In the case of Dr. Charlie Lieber, he was not charged as a spy. On February 3, 2020, Science Magazine reported that “[w]hat worries Andrew Lelling, U.S. attorney for the Massachusetts district, is that Lieber was allegedly paid to carry out research in China, which, combined with his failure to disclose those relationships, makes him potentially vulnerable to pressure from the Chinese government to do its bidding at some future point.” Are we punishing a child because one day he may grow up to be a criminal? How far have we deviated from a justice system based on facts and evidence, rather than pretext, for individual prosecutions or investigations? When was the last time the U.S. government targeted a nation and a people for law enforcement?

These issues about accountability, oversight, and transparency are at the heart of racial profiling (according to the definition in H.R. 7120 Justice in Policing Act of 2020), justice, and fairness concerns for the Asian American community that led to the formation of the APA Justice Task Force in 2015.