Top-tier academic journals such as Nature, Science, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Lancet have published reams of research funded by the Chinese Communist Party in recent years, a Washington Examiner review found.
This Chinese-funded research has proven useful to critics of President Donald Trump, some of whom cited it extensively in a recent, well-publicized critique of his Department of Energy. The critique, alongside the favorable media coverage it attracted, failed to disclose its use of CCP-funded research or the fact that the Chinese government is known to fund research that aligns with its economic and security interests.
In July, the DOE released a report that concluded man-made climate change is occurring but qualified the finding by arguing that the negative effects of global warming are often overstated by the academic mainstream and, even if they weren’t, tweaks to American policy would have only a marginal influence on world temperatures.
The report sparked outrage from the scientific community.
On Tuesday, 85 scientists released a 459-page rebuttal to the DOE report, highlighting a large body of scientific literature pointing to how climate change can exacerbate droughts, floods, crop failures, and other disasters. One author called the DOE report a “mockery of science.” The rebuttal, however, has a potential problem of its own.
A Washington Examiner review of the document’s references found nearly four dozen unique citations of research funded by one or more arms of the CCP. Many papers cited in the rebuttal also listed Chinese government employees as authors. None of this was disclosed in the document itself. Additionally, large media outlets, including the New York Times, CNN, Reuters, National Public Radio, and Time Magazine, provided the document with positive coverage without mentioning the CCP-funded research it utilized.
Among the Chinese government entities that funded research cited in the rebuttal were various arms of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the China Scholarship Council, the National Basic Research Program of China, and the National Key Research and Development Program of China. All five entities are either part of the Chinese government or directly overseen by it.
The prevalence of Chinese-funded research in the anti-Trump climate document and in broader scientific literature indicates how widespread the CCP’s influence over academia has grown and serves as another example of how Western institutions allow their reputations to be used for the CCP’s benefit.
“The New England Journal of Medicine applies the same rigorous and independent peer-review process to all submitted research, regardless of funding source or country of origin,” a spokeswoman for the publication said when reached by the Washington Examiner. “Editorial decisions are based solely on the quality and integrity of the science.”
The Chinese government runs an array of grantmaking programs to fund and promote research aligned with its national interests. One major priority of the CCP in this realm is to produce scientific papers on the dangers of climate change and the utility of alternative forms of energy.
China’s focus on global warming and green energy, many observers argue, isn’t borne out of a genuine passion for ecology.
“The ultimate power China wants is the ability to control America’s power,” Michael Lucci, CEO of the national security organization State Armor, told the Washington Examiner. “That’s why China’s government promotes environmental extremism within the United States, so that we buy Chinese energy technologies that are laden with kill switches that allow the CCP to shut down our electric grid. They promote this scheme as ‘green technology,’ but when it comes from China, it is ‘red tech.’ China promotes this influence operation through agreements with states like California, through flooding academic journals, and through advocacy within the United States directed and funded by nonprofits like Energy Foundation China.”
Analysts, such as those at the Heritage Foundation, have argued that China’s support of green energy, both domestically and abroad, is part of a broader strategy to “transform its energy resource vulnerabilities into a net advantage.” The Heritage Foundation analysts assert that China has “hijacked” the American environmental movement for its own benefit, as China has a significant economic interest in replacing fossil fuels with alternative forms of energy.
China is the world’s largest producer of solar panels and has a massive and growing electric vehicle industry. The wider adoption of these technologies would be a boon for the country. Unlike the U.S., China has relatively small oil and gas reserves, making it reliant on imports.
That China’s scientific grant makers operate in lockstep with Beijing is not mere speculation. The Chinese government entities funding academic research, including the papers cited in the rebuttal to the DOE report, have been documented as working explicitly to advance the interests of the CCP.
The Chinese Academy of Sciences, responsible for funding eight of the studies in the rebuttal document, for instance, operates under the State Council, the “executive body of the supreme organ of state power” in China, led by CCP member Hou Jianguo.
Jianguo wrote in 2020, shortly after being selected as the organization’s president, that it “will be guided by [Chinese President] Xi Jinping’s thoughts on socialism with Chinese characteristics for [a] new era.”
Even more explicit is the Chinese Scholarship Council, which provided funding for four studies cited in the rebuttal document.
The Chinese Scholarship Council is a state-backed organization that provides Chinese nationals with funds to pursue research or education. As a condition of receiving these funds, however, recipients must sign a loyalty pledge to the CCP and “support the leadership of the Communist Party and the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics; love the motherland; have a sense of responsibility to serve the country, society, and the people; and to have a correct world view, outlook on life, and values system.”
Failure to comply with the loyalty pledge is punishable by requiring researchers to repay scholarships in full, creating a powerful incentive to toe the party line.
“To obtain major grants in China, it is an open secret that doing good research is not as important as schmoozing with powerful bureaucrats and their favorite experts,” two Chinese academics wrote in a 2010 issue of Science. “This top-down approach stifles innovation and makes clear to everyone that the connections with bureaucrats and a few powerful scientists are paramount, dictating the entire process of guideline preparation.”
The National Natural Science Foundation of China, responsible for funding 32 studies cited in the rebuttal document, is directly overseen by the Chinese government and has its leadership appointed by the CCP. When determining whether to fund a project, the foundation considers how well it aligns with China’s national economic and social development plans.
China’s National Basic Research and National Key Research and Development programs, which provided funding for 14 research papers cited in the rebuttal document, likewise operate under the auspices of the CCP. The 863 Program, which the U.S. government identified as a Chinese intelligence operation, was the precursor to the National Key Research and Development Program.
“Scientific debate is all well and good, but the reality is China would like nothing more than to see the U.S. go full ‘Green New Deal’ and abandon reliable forms of energy like coal, gas, and oil,” one U.S. government official told the Washington Examiner.
China’s effort to prompt a strong reaction to climate change and a transition to greater reliance on alternative forms of energy isn’t confined to academic research. Every year, charities with leadership linked to the CCP pump millions of dollars into American environmentalist charities, some of which work directly with the Chinese government to accomplish its policy goals.
Energy Foundation China, the nonprofit group mentioned by Lucci, is one such major funder of domestic environmental nonprofit organizations, disbursing tens of millions of dollars each year to support American activists while operating under the oversight of the CCP.
In addition to Chinese funding, some American environmental charities even enlist former members of the Chinese government in senior leadership positions.
DOZENS OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES MAINTAIN PARTNERSHIPS WITH CHINESE MILITARY-LINKED ENTITIES
The Nature Conservancy is one organization that fits that description. Its staffing so concerned Congress that it opened an investigation into its management of land near U.S. military installations in April. At least three scientists listed among the authors of the DOE rebuttal document have worked with the Nature Conservancy in the past.
The authors of the rebuttal document did not respond to a request for comment.