A congressional investigation has raised serious allegations against renowned geologist Wendy Mao, a prominent figure in materials science and a collaborator with NASA. The investigation, conducted by the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, claims that Mao played a role in advancing China’s nuclear and hypersonic weapons programs while operating within the U.S. research framework.
Mao, 49, serves as Chair of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Stanford University. Her research on the behavior of diamonds under extreme pressure has been instrumental in developing materials for NASA spacecraft. Despite her accolades and reputation as a trailblazer for women in science, the recent 120-page report titled “Containment Breach” brings troubling evidence of her connections to Chinese military research.
The investigation emphasizes that Mao’s federally funded research became intertwined with China’s defense sector over more than a decade. The report highlights her “dual affiliations” and points to a significant conflict of interest. It states, “This case exposes a profound failure in research security, disclosure safeguards, and potentially export controls.”
Mao’s ties to the China Academy of Engineering Physics (CAEP), a central institution for China’s nuclear weapons development, are particularly concerning. While holding senior positions at Stanford and affiliated laboratories, she maintained collaborative relationships with organizations linked to China’s military-industrial complex, including the HPSTAR institute, which is overseen by CAEP and headed by her father, Ho-Kwang Mao.
The report alleges that Mao co-authored numerous research papers with Chinese researchers associated with defense-related institutions. The subjects of these papers, including hypersonics and aerospace propulsion, have clear military applications. One NASA-supported paper has drawn scrutiny for potentially violating the Wolf Amendment, which prohibits NASA collaborations with Chinese entities without a certified waiver.
Investigators highlighted systemic failures within the research security frameworks of both the Department of Energy (DOE) and NASA. They stated, “Taken together, these affiliations and collaborations demonstrate systemic failures within DOE and NASA’s research security and compliance frameworks.” The findings suggest that American taxpayer-funded research has unintentionally contributed to the modernization of China’s military capabilities.
The implications of this investigation are severe. The report indicates that between June 2023 and June 2025, over 4,300 academic papers were published involving collaborations between DOE-funded scientists and Chinese researchers, with roughly half affiliated with China’s military or defense sector.
Congressman John Moolenaar, chairman of the China select committee, expressed alarm at the findings. He stated, “The investigation reveals a deeply alarming problem. The DOE failed to ensure the security of its research, and it put American taxpayers on the hook for funding the military rise of our nation’s foremost adversary.”
In response to the allegations, Stanford University announced it is reviewing the findings but has sought to downplay Mao’s associations with Beijing. University spokeswoman Luisa Rapport asserted that Mao has never collaborated on nuclear technology and claimed she has not held formal ties with HPSTAR since 2012.
Supporters of international research collaboration argue that such partnerships foster innovation and attract global talent. However, the House report suggests that the lack of oversight in open research systems has allowed critical advancements to flow to adversarial military applications.
China has dismissed the report as politically motivated, with Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, stating that the allegations lack credibility.
As the investigation continues, the questions surrounding Wendy Mao’s research affiliations serve as a stark reminder of the complexities and potential risks inherent in international scientific collaboration. The stakes are high, and the discourse around national security in academic research is more relevant than ever.
