It's not just one of the problems; I think it starts at home.
What the researchers actually cite is that they have quick access to money, to funding, while in the European Union they have to apply constantly for grants, with a very uncertain ending as to whether or not they will get the grant. In China, it's relatively easy. The paperwork is even easier. That's one of the reasons they said that it has over-bureaucratized science applications, basically discouraging them from even applying, or preferring Chinese funding to other sources of funding.
The second point is that China has all the infrastructure. They said it's easy. It's convenient. It's very fast to receive basically everything they need.
Third, they also cited as one of the reasons that they don't have to deal with ethical issues or ethical standards in science in China, though they covered it up, I would just say bluntly. If they want to co-operate with Chinese partners, they will get very quick results without actually needing to have ethics boards consulted for various kind of experiments. These are things that make China attractive for different collaborations.
Last but not least, there's also a great deal of naïveté, as Kevin said. They do focus just on their single science area, be it experimental physics, or.... They basically do not see all of the geopolitical implications. Once again, we will have to go individual by individual—not necessarily to directors and vice-directors and deans, but actually to the heads of laboratories and individual researchers to raise their awareness, and perhaps coupling carrots with the sticks from our side. It's not just about levelling the playing field in terms of providing better access to funding; it's also to make them aware that there are consequences of co-operation with China sometimes.