Harvard’s Research Ties Under Scrutiny

A recent report from the House Select Committee investigating the Chinese Communist Party reveals that Harvard University has not sufficiently safeguarded its research collaborations with various Chinese institutions, including some linked to China’s military and defense sectors. Interestingly, researchers from Harvard have co-authored over 140 publications with colleagues from these Chinese university groups, as noted by sources close to the committee.

Among the educational institutions flagged by U.S. officials, the “Seven Sons of National Defense” stand out as key players in China’s military research initiatives. The committee suggests that Harvard’s current approach to research security may inadvertently facilitate advancements that could bolster adversarial military capabilities.

Further complicating matters, it’s reported that Harvard has received upwards of $600 million from China, positioning it as the leading recipient of foreign funds among U.S. universities according to the Department of Education. This financial relationship has prompted the committee to advocate for stricter regulations regarding foreign collaborations and funding transparency.

The implications of this report extend beyond Harvard. U.S. officials have been vocal about concerns that China leverages academic partnerships to enhance its military, surveillance, and other capacities. The House committee is pressing universities that rely on taxpayer funding to exceed mere legal compliance when engaging with entities associated with China’s military research.

Interestingly, the report highlights a specific 2023 study on bio-based soft robots intended for deep-sea exploration, co-authored with researchers at Beihang University—one of the Seven Sons schools. While some committee members argue the research has military potential, such as for underwater detection, Harvard’s Office of Research Compliance disputes this characterization, deeming the project non-military.

Compounding the situation, the Harvard team also collaborated on research with China’s National University of Defense Technology, another institution on the U.S. restricted list. This particular project involved magnetic materials and received partial support from the U.S. Army Research Office.

The committee’s investigations span numerous disciplines, revealing that engineering comprises the bulk of Harvard’s research involving these Chinese institutions. Committee chairman Rep. John Moolener has voiced serious concerns, urging Harvard to reform its practices to mitigate the influence of the Chinese Communist Party on campus and prioritize research safety for American interests.

The report further delves into Harvard’s executive education program linked to China’s National Medical Security Administration, which aimed to instruct Chinese health officials on international healthcare systems. Strikingly, records indicated that officials from the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC) were involved in some sessions. Notably, this organization has been sanctioned by the Treasury Department for severe human rights violations against Uighurs and other minorities in the Xinjiang region. However, it remains ambiguous if XPCC personnel participated in all the relevant programs.

Harvard asserts that it had prior awareness regarding participants in a 2020 online session that included XPCC-related individuals but opted not to take any action. A Harvard professor involved in the program claimed ignorance about XPCC’s status as a sanctioned entity and mentioned a lack of training on compliance with sanctions.

The report criticizes Harvard’s research security protocols for being overly focused on technical compliance, ignoring the greater national security threats associated with collaborations involving China’s military entities. Cited in the findings, a research official from Harvard indicated that partnerships are evaluated individually rather than categorically banning all interactions with Chinese institutions, which the committee challenges. They contend that research linked to organizations involved in China’s civil-military integration may have military implications, regardless of its intended classification.

Concerns also arise over Harvard Global Research and Support Services, which has the capability to accept funding under different terms if Harvard itself cannot. The committee suspects this could potentially allow circumvention of federal reporting on foreign gifts, a claim Harvard is likely to contest.

Interestingly, Harvard has yet to respond to inquiries about the committee’s findings in the report. The recommendations put forth suggest banning research partnerships with entities on the U.S. sanctioned lists and increasing oversight of research security protocols. Additionally, there’s a call for Congress to tighten requirements surrounding foreign funding disclosures for academic institutions.