[wyldberry]

I'm not disputing that, what I was (poorly) trying to communicate is that the pervasiveness of academic espionage chain is incredibly widespread. It relies heavily on the underfunded, international graduate students.

Many things are open research and intentionally funded as so, until a dual-use is found. My example was meant to show something that was intentionally funded and released openly, but only because USSR didn't know what they had and it's implications.

My personal confidence in this administration to do anything here in a meaningful way is non-existent. However, the very real problem of academic research funded by American dollars, in American labs, being passed to Geo-political adversaries before publish is pervasive and difficult to solve.

In a purely academic sense: i agree research should be fully transparent, except when a specific reason exists. The point is that sometimes we do not know it shouldn't be and that can be a real critical mistake. A way, and not the only way, to de-risk that is to enforce more strict criterion on the researcher(s) themselves.

Also: thank you for taking the time to reply. I'm a big fan of your work and personal blog.