U.S. Scientists Wary Of Traveling To China

This summer, three years after the prodemocracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square and the subsequent Chinese government crackdown on participants—including many scientists and students—at least two important scientific meetings, one in entomology and one in physics, have been scheduled in Beijing. Because of China's record of human rights abuses, the original siting of the meetings in China has been hotly debated within each scientific community, with some concerned United States scientists in favor of boycotting the gatherings to protest the current regime. These scientists as well as others who have yet to decide whether they will attend the sessions are also trying to judge who will be helped or hurt by refusing to attend the Chinese meetings—and whether such refusal might, in fact, redound to the detriment of the boycotters. "As scientists, we all have a special obligation to protect freedom of expression, in the same way that attorneys have a special obligation to protect the rule of law," wrote a group of 13 U.S. entomologists and biologists opposed to the selection of Beijing for the 1992 entomology meeting. Of seven signers contacted, all had later chosen to boycott. "Open discussion is an integral part of the scientific process," the group's open letter, Which appeared in the October 19, 1990, issue of the journal Science, said. Ironically, similar sentiments underlie the view of other scientists, who point to the detrimental aspects of isolating Chinese scientists by staying away from meetings—at least some meetings—but continue to see the boycott as an effective tool against others. "I don't think boycotts are a good idea," says Fang Lizhi, the Chinese astrophysicist who became the focus of a high-profile struggle between the U.S. and China when he sought refuge in the U.S. embassy after the Tiananmen Square massacre. Eventually allowed to leave China, he is a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Arizona, Tucson. "If there are Chinese government-sponsored meetings, then, yes, boycott those," he says. "But if researchers and professors [in the U.S.] receive invitations from their counterparts in China, then they should accept." Scientists who decide to attend meetings in China may not wish to ignore the Chinese government's human rights record. To give these scientists a range of possible responses in addition to the boycott—such as circulating petitions for presentation to Chinese officials or dedicating a paper to an imprisoned scientist-a group called the Committee to End the Chinese Gulag is distributing a publication called "On Behalf of Political Prisoners in China: How to Raise Human Rights Cases." Cochaired by astrophysicist Fang and a former Russian political prisoner, Yuri Orlov, who is currently a physics professor at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., the group is affiliated with Human Rights Watch in New York City, the largest U.S.-based human rights monitoring group. Boycotting remains the leading option for many. And, although cast as a secondary consideration, few feel that their own careers will suffer for failing to attend a major conference. "Tiananmen Square was abhorrent to many of us," says Rudolph L. Pipa, chairman of the entomology department at the University of California, Berkeley. Pipa chose to boycott the congress in Beijing. "I don't believe it would damage a person's career in the positive sense [to boycott], especially if it was clear why. [Attending the congress] Would be beneficial, of course, but people who are asked to participate are already well on their way." Physicists' Dilemma Despite protests, the 21st International Conference on the Physics of Semiconductors (ICPS-21) will be held in Beijing August 10-14, with more than 1,000 scientists expected to attend. Members of the physics community are considering how to react to the convergence of human rights issues and their science. Horst Stormer, director of physical research at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, N.J., plans to attend ICPS-21. He feels that the professional loss of not attending the meeting outweighs the political value of a boycott. "I was there [in Beijing] in 1980 and made some friends that I continue to talk to," he says. "There is more benefit to continued talking. I will be discussing these [human rights] issues. I think they will come up quite naturally." But the discussions will be private—Stormer does not plan any public statements on human rights. Physicist Myriam Sarachik of City College of New York will not be attending ICPS-21 for personal reasons; but she was one of 35 eminent scientists who signed an appeal to Chinese Premier Li Peng, on the third anniversary this June of the Tiananmen Square killings, urging him to release political prisoners. If she were going, she says, she would make a statement of some kind at the meeting. "It's a question of personal style," she says. "There is no right answer. Some will go and make statements, some will not go, and some will go and not say anything. Some people are not capable of confrontation." Herman Winick, a physicist and deputy director of the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory, helped fight efforts to completely derail ICPS-21. He favors attendance with some statement of protest for all but the highest-profile scientists as the most effective way to promote human rights concerns—although he recognizes that even going to China presents something of a mixed statement. Winick is also chairman of the Committee on the International Freedom of Scientists of the American Physical Society. "A meeting with 1,000 scientists in China will help the cause of science in China," Winick says. On the other hand, he says, "the Chinese government will [also] use this meeting for their own propaganda, which is vexing." Lu J. Sham is a physicist at the University of California, San Diego, and chairman of the Semiconductor Commission of the Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP), which selected Beijing for the meeting. "I have heard of people that will go, and people that will not go," he says. "I've also heard some people had abstracts rejected and were irate about not being able to go, so I assume they [the organizers] have plenty of papers," he adds, indicating an overall willingness in the community to go to Beijing. Entomologists, contacted before their meeting, also reacted with a wide a range of responses to human rights questions' overlapping with their discipline. The 19th International Congress of Entomology was expected to draw about 1,400 entomologists to Beijing June 28-July 4. Lynn M. Riddiford, an entomologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, was invited to give a plenary talk at the Beijing conference. "I am going," she says, "and I will not be making a statement. Who's going to hear it? A whole bunch of entomologists. I look back on going to Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Russia in the 1970s and 1980s-we were keeping those people scientifically alive. It saved some of the best scientists, kept them in science." John R. Anderson, an entomologist at the University of California, Berkeley, chose not to attend the Beijing meeting, although he says most entomologists are "pretty conservative," and probably would go. "I have Chinese students, and I take a personal stand," he says. "I'm not going any place that shoots students in cold blood." Providing Options Giving scientists who are concerned about China's human rights abuses alternatives to boycotting is one of the aims of the publication from the Committee to End the. Chinese Gulag. "That document is a very valuable one," says physicist Sarachik. "We've discussed these options before, but no one has ever sat down to write this out before." Possible actions include raising human rights issues in informal settings with Chinese hosts, or even presenting a formal petition of signatures to Chinese officials and holding a press conference to draw attention to it. "There's a range of things people can consider doing," says Stanford's Winick. "If you have a Nobel Prize, announce you will not attend at a press conference. If you are less prominent, come prepared with information about human rights abuse cases and discuss the issues with your hosts." "It depends on the situation," says Orlov, "and on the character of the scientist. If you want to say, 'These scientists must be released,' say this. If you want to gather signatures, gather them. [But] this behavior requires strength." Dedicating a paper to an imprisoned colleague can also be very effective, Orlov says. This is something that was done periodically for him when he was jailed in Siberia for eight years. Even though he would sometimes receive poorer treatment from his captors for a time after such statements in his support, it always served to strengthen him psychologically, he says. "I am a former prisoner," Orlov says. "I know it is better-better for my soul—to know I am not forgotten." What Works? Broad, persistent public pressure on the government of the former Soviet Union was partly responsible for the release or improvement of conditions of imprisoned scientists there, say committee members, and the hope is that China, too, will be responsive to this approach. According to Richard Dicker, committee director, it is important to raise specific cases whenever possible. This has proved effective in the former Soviet Union, Argentina, and elsewhere. In China, for instance, the committee has focused on the cases of physics graduate student Liu Gang, social scientist Wang Juntao, and others. At least 125 natural and social scientists have been arrested for supporting democratic reforms, according to the committee. Dicker also emphasizes .the importance of publicizing whatever individual action is taken: A decision not to attend a meeting as a way of protesting Chinese human rights policies may go unnoticed unless declared as such publicly. Debate continues as to whether covert or public pressure on the Chinese is most effective in changing the conditions of those imprisoned. U.S. State Department officials maintain that their effort—most of it out of public view—is more likely to bring change in China's policies, but not all scientists agree. "Open diplomacy is much more important than secret diplomacy," says physicist Orlov. "Scientists must defend scientists."

U.S. Scientists Wary Of Traveling To China

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of