Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties

sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 127 posts

Re: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties

#81

Post by radicalbyte »

duxup wrote: post #70
radicalbyte wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> credit checks (the credit checks were just dumb). Credit checks are extremely smart. People who are financially vulnerable are high risk.

I wonder how accurate that is. There's plenty of evidence of folks who are desperate doing desperate things... but also plenty of people doing bad things simply for "more" money. As far as financal status goes I'm not sure how good an indicator this is, for say a support role where you may or may not interact with a bank.

Take the case of this American politician:

https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/wsj-kushn...

The guy's family has a massive debt. He was denied security clearance because that debt makes him a big risk. His party somehow push it through (politicians, sigh) and now he has been bailed out by the Saudi regime (iirc he's foreign secretary to Saudi Arabia or something - the top politician responsible for that country).

In potentially sensitive or powerful positions it's only prudent to look at how susceptible someone is to being influenced. The news is full of stories of people committing fraud to pay for gambling debts. Treason isn't exactly far off of that..

Re: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties

#82

Post by radicalbyte »

morpheuskafka wrote: post #73
radicalbyte wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> credit checks (the credit checks were just dumb). Credit checks are extremely smart. People who are financially vulnerable are high risk.

A credit check is basically relevant to any job. If you can't be trusted to pay back your loans on time as promised how can you be trusted to do your job as promised?

We're talking powerful and/or sensitive positions here. Well paid IT for banks, political roles, management/directorial roles in industry. A very small percentage of overall jobs.

Re: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties

#83

Post by sidlls »

radicalbyte wrote: post #66
duxup wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When worked as technical support we had some large banks as customers who insisted everyone who worked their cases be US citizens. We worked with some semi sensitive technical data, but nothing directly banking related. A few banks required drug and credit checks (the credit checks were just dumb). Amusingly they were happy to hire on connected people in less friendly nations when operating overseas. I think the citi…

> credit checks (the credit checks were just dumb). Credit checks are extremely smart. People who are financially vulnerable are high risk.

This is something people in security sensitive fields like to claim, but the fact is narcissism drives acts of betrayal much more often than desperation for cash. The thrill of "getting away with something" or having the sense of being smarter than peers and overseers has certainly caused much more betrayal than something as mundane as money.

Re: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties

#84

Post by sidlls »

Dirlewanger wrote: post #52
haditab wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. By his logic "birth place" shouldn't be the determining factor. FYI, birth place does not determine nationality.

While that's true, personally I'm ok with birth place being a restriction for some things e.g. in order to run for President in the US, one needs to be born in the US, not merely a citizen. Not sure how it is in other Western countries.

Naturalized citizens are often more trustworthy than citizens by birth.

Re: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties

#85

Post by duxup »

radicalbyte wrote: post #81
duxup wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how accurate that is. There's plenty of evidence of folks who are desperate doing desperate things... but also plenty of people doing bad things simply for "more" money. As far as financal status goes I'm not sure how good an indicator this is, for say a support role where you may or may not interact with a bank.

Take the case of this American politician: https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/wsj-kushn... The guy's family has a massive debt. He was denied security clearance because that debt makes him a big risk. His party somehow push it through (politicians, sigh) and now he has been bailed out by the Saudi regime (iirc he's foreign secretary to Saudi Arabia or something - the top politician responsible for tha…

Wouldn't think counter point be all the wealthy political folks who do the same thing?

Re: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties

#86

Post by astazangasta »

klipt wrote: post #77
codegeek wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny you say that because in the US, Indians are not considered Asians in practice even though of course South Asia is, well in Asia. I have seen many people argue that Asians only mean East Asians and does not include South Asians. However, the official census lumps all Asians together.

Genetically, most Indians are more closely related to Europeans than to East Asians. And East Asians are more closely related to Native Americans than to Indians. E.g. https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/53636/online-phy...

This is one phylogeny. What is it built on? The problem is individual haplotypes have complex histories of their own which recombine sexually to form diverse mixtures which flow across "ethnic" groups.

Re: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties

#87

Post by chungleong »

hpkuarg wrote: post #62
crunchiebones wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it obviously depends on the context, but China is homogeneous enough that 'chinese' is often used to mean more than just nationality

Considering China to be a homogeneous entity in any dimension is borne of ignorance. Linguistically, the four largest cities in China (Guangzhou, Shanghai, Chongqing, Beijing) speak "dialects" that range from barely mutually intelligible to not at all. Politically, the region has had a long history of provinces disregarding central rule, rivalry between major power centers, etc. Cultural boundaries have been somewhat…

The only meaningful distinction is between mainland Chinese vs Hong Kongers/Taiwanese/Chinese Diaspora. There's no ignoring the damage done by the Cultural Revolution. The old honor code that used to govern social relations just isn't there anymore. Mainland China is a complete wild west where anything goes. Cheating. Stealing. Stabbing friends in the back.

Re: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties

#88

Post by astazangasta »

ConfusedDog wrote: post #30

Why not look into other ethinic's ties with foreign nations that taking advantage of US funded research? Probably because they are not considered to be threats, and sharing common good research results is not necessarily a bad thing. (Military tech is different story.) The fact is US is considering China as a threat under Trump's throne, so researchers with Chinese heritage is under much higher scrutiny than other ra…

Specifically, white people have been stealing research and claiming it as theirs for decades. We give them Nobel prizes when they do it really well.

Re: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties

#89

Post by toasterlovin »

RankingMember wrote: post #31
danso wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are Indians not considered “Asians in practice” when they are considered as such by the Census, the authoritative organization that sets the categorization standard?

In my experience living in the U.S. at least, if someone is referring to someone of Indian origin, they call them Indian, whereas if someone is referring to someone of Korean/Japanese/Chinese origin, they'll call them Asian (unless they know their particular country of origin).

I would expand the Asian designation to include southeast Asians as well (Vietnam, Philippines, Cambodia, Thailand, etc). Though maybe that’s just a west coast thing.

Re: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags foreign ties

#90

Post by toasterlovin »

EliRivers wrote: post #33
lotsofpulp wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, Asian = people from eastern Asia. In the UK, Asian = people from southern Asia.

Speaking as someone from the UK, when I say "Asian" I mean East Asian, and when I mean someone from South Asia, I name the specific nationality. For example, I generally wouldn't refer to someone from India as "Asian".

FWIW, all the UK coverage of the grooming gang scandals refers to the perpetrators as Asian (they are mostly South Asian, and definitely not East Asian).
Post reply on HN