The author made many good points about why spying on foreign born students is a bad idea. One of which is that the vast majority of scientific research is published for all to see, including our "enemies".
But honestly the vast majority of the knowledge transfer is happening through more legitimate means. Even the famous Stanford machine learning professor Andrew Ng got poached by Baidu.
This twitter thread from law professor Sarah Burnstien is related - https://twitter.com/design_law/status/1166326853952557059
Claiming continued ownership over something that is in somebody else's head after they have left your legal sphere is somewhat problematic.
Also, it is rather cheeky, as the US research community has relied massively on brain drain from poor or wartorn countries for quite a while now.
i think we could be nudging up against a born secret mentality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_secret
I would be concerned about this concept being widened beyond nuclear energy research.
as an example computer ubiquity and internet connectivity allow 4th/5th gen warfar to exist. If encryption or miniturization, or transmission media were considered subject to born secret doctrine that could make things very difficult and somewhat partisan.
I feel also, that you can't really go around telling people that they are banned from emigrating due to what they know, unless you also have a labyrinth containing a minotaur, fed with captured foreign citizens.
Although, I have to say, it would not greatly surprise me by this point to learn that this was in fact the case.
when a western scientist goes to work in China, the nutters are angry because of "loss"
if an easter scientist comes to work in US, the nutters are angry because of "loss"
it's just in-group out-group identity politics bullshit...
just like how in times of slavery interracial marriages were a big no-no because it blurs the agreed-upon line of class separation ("which class does the mixed child belong in?" the biological expression of a mixed child [that we are fundamentally the same] contradicts the ideological expression [that we are fundamentally different]) so today any form of mingling is viewed as a threat to warmongers (who want to maintain a simple thus virally contagious worldview)...
There is SO MUCH more of what is not published: techniques, materials, who is who, suppliers, etc. Well, some countries spacial programs were made with IP stolen from the US. Can you image loss of revenue and power that comes with that?
Maybe you are in a such detach position that you Can't see how much wealth is created by American IP. And how much it goes in the US economy.
You may hate Disney, Microsoft, Cisco, etc. But they bring jobs, revenues, and wealth with their IP.
Let's invert the situation.
American students will work on Iran nuclear research. And we will "forbid" any spy from Iran govt how does it play? Will Iran govt play "nice" care about good points?
It surprises me when the US has to be 100% correct and 200% caring about emotions when everyone else doesn't give a crap and steal from the US.
Now lets rain downvotes.
I suspect that Werner von Braun would find this hilarious.
Also, I'm flitting on the verge of calling Poe's law here.
Just to be clear, is the argument here, "we should be more like Iran?" We're not playing 'nice', we're talking about what strategies are actually in the US's best interests.
The author makes the point that very little of this research is actually private, and that society as a whole benefits from open sharing anyway. A lot of our research happens via cooperation with other countries -- and if you throw that away because you're worried about some bad actors, eventually you're just going to be cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
Private research moves slower than collaborative research.
The author goes on to make the point that a much more effective way of keeping talent in the US is to keep talent in the US. Make it easier for entrepreneurs and researchers who immigrate to the US to stay here permanently and join our economy. If you really want to be competitive with China, think of it this way: every talented scientist or engineer that immigrates to the US from China, is one less talented researcher at the disposal of China's economy.
Whoever heard of a competitive business that decided not to hire the best workers indiscriminately, and not to make it attractive and easy for them to stay in the company for long periods of time? Yet the current US immigration strategy is to bring in effectively "interns", build a hostile work environment where they are distrusted, and then offer them no alternative except to go back to their original countries with the knowledge they've gained. Any business owner can tell you that's a recipe for disaster.
> You may hate Disney, Microsoft, Cisco, etc. But they bring jobs, revenues, and wealth with their IP.
Disney, Microsoft, and Cisco are all independent companies. If they wanted to give their secrets to the Chinese government, the US government would have no way to stop them.
They don't have any special, contractual allegiance to the US beyond written law -- and there is no written law that would compel them to spy on foreign-born employees. I expect the majority of these companies already conduct some research in other countries with the cooperation of other governments.