Latest news with #KseniiaPetrova
Scientific American
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Scientific American
Attacks on Higher Education Are Attacks on All Americans
Grant cancellations and budget reductions at the National Institutes of Health have put millions of dollars in research for promising new cancer treatments, tuberculosis therapies, and much more in jeopardy. Our elected officials could intervene if all Americans, not just academics, were to send a clear signal that they should. Instead much of the public has shrugged its shoulders. Since January the U.S. government has frozen billions of dollars in federal research funding to institutions such as Harvard University, Columbia University and Princeton University. The Department of Education has opened investigations into 60 universities over allegations of antisemitism, using these inquiries to justify funding cuts and impose policy mandates. The administration has also placed international students under scrutiny, threatening visa revocations and deportations for those participating in campus protests deemed hostile to government interests. The administration has detained foreign-born academics such as Kseniia Petrova, a researcher at Harvard, who was recently released after she was placed in criminal custody for failing to declare research materials at customs. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Collectively, we're witnessing unprecedented attempts to bully academic institutions with the administration's ideological aims. These attempts challenge long-standing norms of academic freedom—that is, the ability of a teacher or researcher in higher education to investigate and discuss subjects without fear of political interference. Our elected officials should stand up for scientific research and those who produce it in the face of politically motivated attacks. But public apathy is making it easier for legislators to ignore the problem. In late March, we worked with YouGov to conduct a nationally representative online survey of 1,500 U.S. adults. We found that while few Americans actively support the president's attacks on science, many more are unbothered by them. For example, 65 percent of Americans either have no position (31 percent) or outright support (34 percent) the possibility that the Trump administration might revoke federal funding to universities that support 'pro-Palestine / anti-Israel protests'. That possibility became very real on April 21, when the NIH suggested making grant awards conditional on compliance with anti-boycott provisions regarding Israeli companies . Similarly, a majority (67 percent) either take no issue with or outright support revoking funding to universities (like the White House did to the University of Pennsylvania) that allow transgender athletes to compete. According to our survey, a majority of Americans either support or do not oppose politically motivated grant funding cancellations—including efforts to study differences in health outcomes attributable to race and gender (54 percent) or research about LGBT populations (64 percent)—mass firings (51 percent) and even forbidding foreign academics from entering the U.S. if they hold opinions at odds with the Trump administration (51 percent). Although there is a lack of polling on these exact issues, publicly available data suggest that our findings mirror those found by pollsters and other public opinion researchers. Many of our colleagues initially believed that attacks on academic freedom and scientific research would cause public outcry. After all, U.S. academic research institutions are behind the country's global leadership in innovation, medicine and technological development. American universities host most of the world's top-ranked research programs, serve as engines of regional economic growth and train future leaders in fields such as medicine, public health and technology—in other words, they provide real jobs for people in and outside of academia. That's why France has already accepted some ' scientific refugees ' from the United States and other countries, such as China, are trying to poach scientists from top American universities. More urgently, defunding and censoring science could have dramatically negative consequences for all Americans. Canceling research on vaccine communication hinders not just our preparedness for future pandemics, but also our response to seasonal flu and COVID. Curtailing studies of health disparities weakens efforts to improve maternal mortality rates, particularly in communities of color, people who have low income and gender-diverse communities. Cutting international academic exchange isolates the U.S. from global scientific collaboration, including partnerships with entities, such as the World Health Organization, that are trying to promote access to lifesaving medical treatments and preventatives. The costs of academic repression, in other words, are not confined to elite institutions—they are borne by everyone. Yet very few Americans seem to be concerned. Why is that so? Politically motivated distrust in academic institutions, particularly on the ideological right, may help explain the attitude and why the Trump administration is taking these actions. Decades of polling demonstrate that perceptions of science increasingly align with political identity. Trust in science across the American political spectrum has undergone a dramatic reversal. In the 1970s conservative Americans reported the highest confidence in scientific institutions. By 2010, however, this relationship had inverted, with conservatives expressing the lowest levels of trust in science. This partisan divide accelerated significantly in 2018 and widened further during the COVID pandemic. The administration's attacks on science demand a response from Congress, especially when political appointees try to circumvent the law. For example, efforts to withhold congressionally appropriated grant funds for scientific research may run afoul of the Impoundment Control Act, which says that the president is legally required to spend money authorized by Congress. Members of Congress could, in theory, amend the act to make it clear that efforts to claw back grants from university researchers is a violation of the law. They could also introduce legislation to forbid grant-making agencies from denying funding to universities that house diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Our congressional leaders can also stand up for science in the process of assembling a new budget for the coming year. Massive proposed cuts to the NIH threaten jobs and billions of dollars of government investment in cities and college towns across the country. But if Americans of all stripes do not send their congressional representatives a clear message that they need to fight against cuts to academic science and research, our elected officials may not be motivated to do so. Politicians, after all, want to win reelection and may feel the need to cater to public opinion to do it. Right now the Republican-majority Congress seems to fear Trump more than the voters, perhaps no surprise given the voter disinterest seen in our poll. What can turn public apathy into outrage? One potential answer comes from people who have changed their mind about what science is and can do for them. Think of celebrity physician Mehmet Oz, now administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, embracing the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine on his television program The Dr. Oz Show in 2019 despite his past doubts. Skeptics are powerful communicators because they establish trust with audiences who share their previously held beliefs while nonetheless challenging those views. Another example of this is Senator Katie Britt of Alabama, a supporter of the current administration who nonetheless voiced concerns over the effects that NIH budget cuts might have on the University of Alabama at Birmingham health care system, one of the largest employers in the state. Trump's supporters may find Senator Britt credible, and her doubts may help those supporters change their mind and convince her to fight on behalf of her constituents to save one of her state's economic powerhouses. Her defense of science could trickle across to other conservative legislators who also think of the interests of their constituents and reelection prospects. Institutions such as the Ohio State University (OSU)—one of our own—demonstrate what's at stake. OSU contributes more than $19 billion annually to the state's economy, supports nearly 117,000 jobs and generates more than $650 billion in tax revenue for state and local governments. These are not abstract stakes—they are material, local and immediate. If voters, especially in politically conservative areas such as Ohio, make clear that dismantling science and academia undermines their communities, Congress may yet act. But without that pressure, the cost of inaction could be catastrophic and long lasting and will affect people far beyond the walls of higher education.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Visa checks may tighten for Harvard's foreign students, warns university
Harvard University has begun welcoming international students back to campus after securing a temporary legal win against a Trump-era directive banning their enrolment. But the return is far from carefree. University officials and immigration support staff have advised students to stay alert, particularly when it comes to their online activity. In a private call held on Thursday, representatives from Harvard's international office and its law school's immigration support group offered detailed guidance to foreign students, Bloomberg reported. 'Think before you post': Warnings to incoming students Students were told that their visa applications and entry at US airports could be scrutinised more closely than before. According to participants on the call, who declined to be named, the university cautioned that US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers can inspect electronic devices and reject entry based on social media content. 'Pro-Palestinian content, antisemitic language, or posts critical of the US could be treated as warning signs,' one student said, citing concerns shared during the discussion. Officials reportedly told students that wiping their devices clean before arrival might also raise red flags. It remains unclear whether human officers or artificial intelligence systems are carrying out these screenings. Prior interactions with law enforcement—even for minor offences—were also flagged as potential risks. Airport checks and detention case add to tension The advisory comes against the backdrop of an incident involving Kseniia Petrova, a Russian-born researcher at Harvard. Petrova was detained at Logan Airport in February after arriving from France and accused of trying to smuggle frog embryos. She spent four months in custody before being granted bail in June, only to be indicted on additional charges weeks later. Trump's political battle with Harvard The latest developments come amid an ongoing standoff between the White House and Harvard. The university has been a central target of President Trump's push to reshape higher education policy in the US. His administration has cancelled over $2.6 billion in research grants to the university and is challenging its tax-exempt status. While the dispute originally focused on allegations of antisemitism, it has since widened to include complaints of political bias and criticism of Harvard's diversity-focused hiring and admissions processes. US lifts visa block for Harvard students In June, the US State Department directed its consular posts worldwide to resume issuing student and exchange visitor visas for Harvard. The move followed a federal court ruling in Boston that temporarily blocked President Trump's ban on international enrolments at the university. The decision was particularly important for Indian students, among the largest groups at Harvard and across American universities. Indian advisers urge caution and preparation Mamta Shekhawat, founder of education platform told Business Standard that the court ruling brought much-needed clarity. 'This is a moment of great relief for the student community,' said Shekhawat. 'Especially for Indian students, they now have access to global opportunities again, which was taken away from them by the US government.' According to US government data, over 330,000 Indian students were enrolled in American institutions last year, making India the top source of international students. Saurabh Arora, founder and CEO of University Living, said students should not take the situation lightly. 'While the court's decision is welcome, it also highlights the need for caution,' said Arora. 'The visa process is becoming more rigorous. Students must be more mindful of their digital presence, prepare their documents thoroughly, and stay authentic during interviews.'
Washington Post
26-06-2025
- Washington Post
Harvard scientist accused of smuggling frog embryos faces new charges
A Russian-born researcher at Harvard University accused of smuggling frog embryos into the United States faced new criminal charges as she was indicted by a federal grand jury in Boston on Wednesday. Kseniia Petrova, a scientist conducting cancer research at Harvard Medical School on a J-1 visa since 2023, was indicted on one count of concealment of a material fact, one count of false statement and one count of smuggling goods. She was first charged with smuggling in a criminal complaint filed May 12.
Fox News
26-06-2025
- Fox News
Ivy League scientist from US adversary hit with new charges for allegedly smuggling bio materials
The Harvard University scientist accused of smuggling frog embryos into the United States was slapped with additional federal charges Wednesday as she faces the possibility of decades in prison for allegedly failing to disclose the biological materials. Russian-born scientist Kseniia Petrova, 30, was indicted by a Boston federal grand jury on one count of concealment of a material fact, one count of smuggling goods into the U.S. and one count of false statement. Petrova, a scientist studying cancer research at Harvard, was initially charged with smuggling last month and will remain on pretrial release despite the new charges. The researcher was arrested after she was stopped by U.S. Customs and Border Protection at Boston Logan International Airport while returning from a vacation to France in February. Petrova told officers she had picked up a package of superfine sections of frog embryos while on her trip with the intention of using the samples for research. Petrova was subsequently informed her visa was being canceled, and she was taken into custody by immigration officials in Vermont following her arrest. Harvard University and an attorney representing Petrova did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment. In an April interview with The Associated Press, Petrova insisted she was unaware of her responsibility to declare the items, claiming she did not intend to sneak anything into the country. However, federal prosecutors allege text messages from Petrova's phone reveal a colleague informed the scientist she was required to declare the biological materials prior to traveling through TSA, according to the Department of Justice. "If you bring samples or antibody back, make sure you get the permission etc," the friend reportedly texted Petrova before her trip. "Like that link I sent to [the group chat] about frog embryos because TSA went through my bags at customs in Boston." Following her arrest in Vermont, Petrova filed a petition seeking her release and was later sent to an ICE detention facility in Louisiana. A judge later ruled the actions of the immigration officers were unlawful, with a federal grand jury initially charging Petrova with one count of smuggling. If convicted, Petrova faces up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for the smuggling charge, and up to five years in prison and an additional $250,000 on charges of concealment of material fact and false statements.
The Hill
26-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Harvard scientist accused of frog embryo smuggling faces new charges
Harvard University researcher Kseniia Petrova is facing a pair of additional charges two weeks after a judge released her from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention. In a court filing Wednesday, the federal government charged Petrova with one count of concealment of a material fact and one count of false statement, on top of the one count of smuggling goods she already faced after she was detained by ICE in February for allegedly smuggling frog embryos into the country. The Russian-born scientist saw her J-1 nonimmigrant visa revoked and faced deportation back to Russia, which she said she fears due to her opposition to the war in Ukraine. U.S. District Judge Christina Reiss recently ruled Petrova is not a flight risk and allowed her to be released while her proceedings move forward. 'We are gratified that today's hearing gave us the opportunity to present clear and convincing evidence that Kseniia Petrova was not carrying anything dangerous or unlawful, and that customs officers at Logan International Airport had no legal authority to revoke her visa or detain her,' said Gregory Romanovsky, Petrova's attorney. Petrova has said she did not realize the items in her bag needed to be declared, while the federal government claims she purposely concealed the alleged frog embryos. 'A subsequent K9 inspection uncovered undeclared petri dishes, containers of unknown substances, and loose vials of embryonic frog cells, all without proper permits,' a Homeland Security spokesperson said in the statement. 'Messages found on her phone revealed she planned to smuggle the materials through customs without declaring them.'
