* Some pretty heavy researchers in the US say that it (the virus) was not human-engineered. I find their reasoning spurious, but they know more than I do.
He was Chair of the Chem department at Harvard, respected key opinion leader etc. All he did was take money from more sources than he disclosed, to fund the normal business of his academic career. Reading between the lines, looking at the photos, everyone familiar with science+academia can clearly see he's slimy but no more slimy than many other respected businesspeople. But to lay people it seems like a scientist is getting persecuted for furthering international cooperation in basic research. And of course one does not chair a Harvard department without powerful friends.
From the court filings, it seems Lieber was caught a long time ago when he e.g. explicitly lied about funding sources to investigators.
When coronavirus happened, suddenly Wuhan, China, and research became politically exposed. Before coronavirus, if you said Lieber took money to help develop a university in Wuhan people in the USA would think he was doing charity work in some unknown tier 3 city. Now people in the USA hear the same and think of advanced bioweapons. It's a good time to indict and convict.
- "We" == "US Research Programs, funded by the Chinese, but not disclosed according to requirements given to them by the university or the federal grant authorities (whoever they might be for any given program)"
- "They" == "Whichever Chinese organizations, governmental or otherwise, that fund US researchers, and encourage them to 'under-the-table' provide results/data/samples"
EDIT: User pavelrub made a very reasonable comment on this thread that he was amazed at American's ability to conspiracy-monger (my words, not his, but he has since deleted his comment. I hope I am not taking too many liberties with his statement), but he's right. I have no basis (as I said up-thread) to believe any of this. Right now, I am hypothesis-hunting, and probably shouldn't share that mental-process in public, given that 99.9% of them (the broken hypotheses) will turn out to be trash.
I could relate to what you said about it’s a mental-process with maybe 99% trash, but there’s still 1% not trash in there and I can only know it isn’t trash by not getting carried away without verifying the hypothesis in first place.
Lesson learned: sure, go ahead with hypothesis hunting, but also spend time to verify them first.
Edit: more simply, be careful about confirmation bias.
I'd love to read more. Do you have a link?
EDIT: Because it was me hypothecating (generating hypotheses), it will be more than one link that may turn out to be unrelated.
Besides, we're moving into a weekend; This is the time for clearing off decks.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-...
"The Department of Justice announced today that the Chair of Harvard University’s Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department and two Chinese nationals have been charged in connection with aiding the People’s Republic of China."
...
"Unbeknownst to Harvard University beginning in 2011, Lieber became a “Strategic Scientist” at Wuhan University of Technology (WUT) in China and was a contractual participant in China’s Thousand Talents Plan from in or about 2012 to 2017. China’s Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese Talent recruit plans that are designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China’s scientific development, economic prosperity and national security."