NYTimes said:His lawyers contacted independent scientists and showed them the diagram that the Justice Department said was the pocket heater. The scientists agreed it was not.
In a sworn affidavit, one engineer, Ward S. Ruby, said he was uniquely qualified to identify a pocket heater. “I am very familiar with this device, as I was one of the co-inventors,” he said.
Last month, Mr. Zeidenberg delivered a presentation for prosecutors and explained the science. He gave them sworn statements from the experts and implored the Justice Department to consult with a physicist before taking the case any further. Late Friday afternoon, the Justice Department dropped the case “in the interests of justice.”
StatGuy2000 said:I agree that it's disturbing that the investigators and prosecutors did not bother to obtain proper evidence or consult with experts in the field before pursuing charges against Dr. Xi. There are echoes here of the investigation of Wen Ho Lee years ago by the Justice Department.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee
I can also imagine that such an investigation could have a potential chilling effect on open collaboration with scientists outside of the US, as well as potentially closing the door to non-Americans from either pursuing graduate studies or pursuing opportunities in the US.
The case involves a thin film physicist who was working for a research institute and was accused of violating export control laws by sharing sensitive technology with a foreign government. The Justice Department launched an investigation and charged the physicist with multiple counts of espionage.
The physicist's colleagues and former students have expressed their disbelief and support for the physicist, stating that he was always transparent about his research and never shared any classified information. They believe that he was unfairly targeted due to his ethnicity and research background.
The Justice Department claims to have evidence that the physicist had interactions with foreign government officials and had shared sensitive information with them. However, the physicist's legal team argues that the interactions were part of his job duties and the information shared was not classified.
There is no concrete evidence of political motivation behind the case, but some experts believe that the current political climate may have played a role in the Justice Department's decision to pursue the case.
This case has raised concerns within the scientific community about the potential consequences of conducting research in certain fields and collaborating with foreign researchers. It may have a chilling effect on international scientific collaboration and the free exchange of ideas and knowledge.