Following in the footsteps of Berkeley and Stanford, the University of California, Davis issued a statement last month reaffirming its commitment to its international researchers and students. In the wake of the dismissal of three scientists from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Centre for their failure to disclose international collaborators, UC Davis’ open display of support is encouraging, though it might ring hollow. Since last year, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has started a sweeping campaign to root out foreign, particularly Chinese, infiltration of the US academic system. Federal Bureau of Investigation director Christopher Wray declared Chinese espionage a “whole-of-society” threat last year, and reiterated his view when he spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations last month, despite vigorous protests from Chinese-American groups including the Committee of 100. The heightened anxiety among Chinese scholars in the United States cannot be overstated, as evidenced by many WeChat group discussions I have witnessed. The United Chinese Americans, a non-profit organisation promoting Chinese-Americans’ full engagement in the civic life of American society, is mobilising forces to call on other higher education institutions to declare their support of academic freedom and scientific collaboration. But universities’ feel-good statements will not improve the plight of many innocent Chinese scholars; they need to stop talking about lofty ideals and start engaging in the difficult debate about setting new ground rules for ivory towers. To unite Trump’s America, all you need is the China threat According to the United Chinese Americans statement of April 25: “Ever since 1996, altogether fewer than 200 defendants – about 31 per cent of them or 58 individuals being Chinese nationals or Chinese Americans – have been charged, not all convicted, under the Economic Espionage Act. “Of those, most were motivated by personal financial gains, not economic espionage carried out in collaboration with a foreign power or with the intent to benefit a foreign government.” The majority of the Chinese scientists in the US are law-abiding and command the respect of their peers. In fact, the US National Academy of Sciences recently elected two new members of Chinese descent (judging by the spelling of their names) and two Chinese scientists as foreign associates, while 12 scholars of Chinese descent were among the new class of more than 200 members elected by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Yet it is undeniable that an alarming number of Chinese scholars have shown a blatant disregard for US laws or relished double-dipping by obtaining funding from conflicting sources. Hongkonger, an ex-CIA officer, pleads guilty to spying for China The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 makes theft or misappropriation of trade secrets – especially industrial espionage with the knowledge and intent that the theft will benefit a foreign power – a federal crime. Although the Chinese who committed the offence might not have done so at the direction of the Chinese government, the prevailing narrative in Washington today tends to emphasise the control of the Chinese Communist Party and essentially treats individuals as agents of the state. Based on numerous discussions with scientists and PhD students of STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), most of them from China, I am surprised by the pervasive lack of comprehensive guidelines and internal communication regarding the legal and ethical boundaries of research conduct at institutes. US charges duo for stealing secrets, spying on GE to aid China Many attribute this to the likelihood that their research does not involve national security. University statements such as “as a general rule, Berkeley faculty and graduate students do not work with sensitive technological secrets or sensitive knowledge” and “at Stanford we are committed to openness in research, and we do not conduct classified research” do not make for a free-flowing academic environment. Universities should do better than endorse blind liberalism. They should have vibrant debates about how best to safeguard academic freedom when its very core tenet is under attack by rogue players taking advantage of the US openness. Even though the effect of the US-China cyber agreement of 2015 was highly debatable, we must seek a comprehensive agreement to require both the US and Chinese governments to refrain from conducting, knowingly supporting or condoning university-enabled theft of intellectual property. To prevent unwarranted visa denials of Chinese and US scholars visiting the other country, universities should collaborate in working out a set of new rules for all players. Rather than simply ascribing espionage to the Chinese or accusing law enforcement officials of racial profiling, we need to ask: why can’t academics learn conflict-of-interest rules, which are the basics of business? More pointedly, as Daniel Golden discusses in Spy Schools: How the CIA, FBI, and Foreign Intelligence Secretly Exploit America’s Universities , the celebrated academic freedom in the US has long been a front for rampant espionage. What a visa war against scholarship will do to US-China relations According to Golden, a long line of CIA officers have “enrolled undercover at the Kennedy School, generally with Harvard’s knowledge and approval, gaining access to up-and-comers worldwide”. He notes Russian spies have also gone to the Kennedy School, albeit without Harvard’s knowledge or cooperation. According to him, Harvard adopted guidelines in the 1970s against US intelligence trying to recruit foreign students as undercover agents, but such guidelines didn’t become standard practice elsewhere. In an interview last year, Golden told me he wished we could have an international treaty declaring colleges as “spy-free” zones. Before that, I think we need US universities, as well as the US and Chinese governments, to find sensible common ground about commercial espionage and to educate all constituencies about the rules. Chiu-Ti Jansen, with advanced degrees from Yale and Columbia, is the founder of multimedia platform China Happenings and a former corporate partner of international law firm Sidley Austin