A sentencing hearing is an opportunity for a judge to determine an appropriate punishment for a convicted criminal. This week, U.S. District Court Senior Judge Julie Robinson used the sentencing of Franklin Tao, a former chemical engineer at the University of Kansas (KU), to also discuss the motivations of academic researchers and how the U.S. government seemingly misunderstood this culture when pursuing criminal charges against Tao. These remarks by Robinson are a rare instance of a federal judge publicly addressing the U.S. academic system and its pursuit of knowledge. Tao was found guilty last year of not accurately reporting his interactions with a Chinese university (Fuzhou University) to KU, and the university stated this week that he is no longer a faculty member. However, Robinson, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2001, stated that the government wrongly depicted Tao’s exploration of an academic position in China as a nefarious attempt to share the results of federally funded research with the Chinese government.
Although Robinson was specifically discussing Tao’s case, her comments also raise questions about how the government has prosecuted approximately two dozen U.S. scientists, most of whom were born in China, under an effort by the Trump administration to prevent Chinese economic espionage. Human rights organizations had claimed that this campaign, known as the China Initiative before it was renamed last year to target all nation-states that threaten U.S. economic and national security, engaged in racial profiling and had a chilling effect on international scientific collaborations.
In sentencing Tao, Robinson rejected the government’s request that he spend 30 months in prison and pay a fine of $100,000. Instead, she imposed no fine or additional jail time beyond the one week he spent in prison after his arrest in August 2019. Instead, She ordered 2 years of supervision for the 52-year-old Tao, who has worn a monitoring device on his ankle since his arrest.
Robinson’s comments during the sentencing hearing include the following:
Tao is a mid-career researcher who has brought acclaim, students, and federal research dollars to KU. However, he was trying to figure out his next steps and had gone to China to test the waters for potential job opportunities. However, he quickly realized that the Chinese government would not provide enough funding to build the lab he needed or match the resources he had at KU, and his family did not want to move there.
This is not an espionage case. The Department of Justice may have thought it was, but they presented no evidence to support this claim. If it were an espionage case, Robinson would have imposed a very different sentence.
Tao’s research is not easily monetized or commercialized. It is fundamental research with a time frame of 20 or 50 years and is shared globally by the scientific community, which does not recognize borders. This has been a positive development throughout human history.
It is important for conflicts to be disclosed to universities and federal funding agencies and for researchers to operate with integrity and without bias. However, there is no evidence that there was any conflict of interest in Tao’s case.
The government’s claim is a conflict of time. Tao was in China while he was supposed to be supervising research at KU, but he was doing both, as he is someone who can work 70 or 80 hours a week consistently.
Tao should have disclosed his activities in China, but there is no evidence that he intended to deceive anyone.
Robinson’s comments during the sentencing hearing provide insight into how the U.S. government viewed Tao’s actions and the broader implications of their prosecution of U.S. scientists under the China Initiative. They also raise important questions about the motivations of academic researchers, the nature of scientific research, and the impact of international scientific cooperation.
