PHOTO: AP PHOTO/MICHAEL DWYER
and received prison sentences of up to
37 months. But the government dropped its
prosecution of seven other scientists. And
in September 2021, in the first China Initia-
tive case to go before a jury, a federal judge
acquitted Anming Hu, a former mechanical
engineering professor at the University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, of charges that he lied
to NASA about his work with the Beijing
University of Technology. An additional five
researchers are still awaiting trial.
Lieber was charged with lying to federal
research agencies about his participation
in a Chinese foreign talent recruitment
program, failing to report income from the
program on his tax returns, and failing to
disclose a Chinese bank account used to
pay him. On 21 December 2021, it took the
jury less than 3 hours to find him guilty.
He faces up to 5 years in prison and a fine
of $250,000.
Neither supporters nor critics of the
China Initiative were surprised by the jury’s
short deliberations. “The charges were very
straightforward,” says Margaret Lewis, a
law professor at Seton Hall University. “The
government had to prove intentionality,
and it was able to present evidence that was
quite striking.”
Much of that evidence came from a video
that prosecutors played in court of Lieber’s
3-hour interrogation by FBI agents after
his arrest on 28 January 2020. It included
Lieber’s observation that the agents had
“damning” evidence that, despite his de-nial, he had joined a Thousand Talents
recruitment program. “I may have signed
a document that was in Chinese that I
shouldn’t have signed,” Lieber says. Lieber
also acknowledged on the recording that
the money he received from the Wuhan
Institute of Technology should have been
declared and that he had failed to do so.
He offered an unflattering motive for the
collaboration: “This is embarrassing. Every
scientist wants a Nobel Prize.”
Lelling says Lieber’s denials about par-
ticipating in the Thousand Talents Pro-
gram showed “bad intent.” But although
Zeidenberg agrees that Lieber was evasive
in answering FBI questions, he’s not sure
his words proved intent. “What was clear
is that [Lieber] was a member of the Thou-
sand Talents Program,” Zeidenberg says.
“But what is less clear to me is what ques-
tions [FBI] asked.”
Lieber’s attorney, Marc Mukasey, has al-
ready filed a motion asking U.S. District
Judge Rya Zobel, who presided over the
case, to acquit him. That is standard prac-
tice, but Lewis says it’s hard to see the con-
viction being overturned.
The verdict is unlikely to change the po-
litical rhetoric surrounding the China Ini-
tiative. Although Lieber wasn’t accused of
improperly sharing the results of his fed-
erally funded research with Chinese scien-
tists, Senator Rob Portman (R–OH), who
has called for tougher sanctions against
scientists who don’t disclose ties to foreignfunders, described the case as “a clear ex-
ample of China’s continued attempts to
steal our taxpayer-funded research.” And
Joseph Bonavolonta, Lelling’s former col-
league and head of FBI’s Boston office, said
Lieber’s conviction “reinforces our commit-
ment to protect our country’s position as a
global leader in research and innovation.”
Lelling, now in private practice at Jones
Day, a law firm, thinks the Department of
Justice will now “raise the bar” for prosecut-
ing similar cases. “What’s to be gained by tar-
geting additional investigators for breaches
of research integrity?” he asks. “You’re not
going to be getting additional deterrence.
That message has already been received.”
In place of pursuing “technical fouls,”
Lelling’s phrase for cases involving a sci-
entist’s failure to disclose research ties, he
expects the department’s national security
division, under newly installed Matthew
Olsen, to focus on alleged theft of intel-
lectual property, trade secrets, and other
forms of economic espionage.
Critics would rather see Congress and
President Joe Biden’s administration pur-
sue broader reforms. They are calling for
clearer and more consistent rules about
what researchers need to disclose, a more
sophisticated approach to handling trade
disagreements with China, and better train-
ing on how academic science operates for
law enforcement agents tasked with sniff-
ing out alleged economic espionage.
Some of those changes are already under-
way and won’t be affected by the Lieber ver-
dict, Lewis says. “There’s a chance now for a
more overarching view of how to maintain
important legal principles in the course of
advancing U.S. interests,” she says, one that
encompasses several federal agencies. “Re-
member, the goal of the China Initiative
was to improve our economic position, not
to send scientists to jail.”
The next step in Lieber’s case is sentenc-
ing. The prosecution will ask for a sentence
based on guidelines that take into account
the nature of the crime as well as the defen-
dant’s criminal history, acceptance of culpa-
bility, and willingness to cooperate with the
government. Lieber’s attorney is likely to ar-
gue for leniency, citing the researcher’s on-
going treatment for cancer, his exemplary
scientific record, and his remorse.
“I think you’ll hear [Lieber] say, ‘I screwed
up, and I shouldn’t have done it,’” Lelling
predicts. “And that matters to judges.”
Lelling’s bottom line: “I think it is highly
unlikely that the government will seek jail
time for Lieber. And it is equally unlikely
that he will get any.” jSCIENCE science.org 7 JANUARY 2022 • VOL 375 ISSUE 6576 11Charles Lieber leaves the Boston courthouse during
his trial last month.