global
In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to the security risks associated with international collaborative research, to the detriment of the research community. Aggressive state efforts to counter academic espionage and the malice of other state powers are particularly noticeable in countries such as Australia and the United States.
But political discourse is also changing in some of the world’s most academically free countries. For example, the Nordic countries have recently increased scrutiny of international research collaborations, especially research involving researchers from China, Russia and Iran.
Nordic politicians are becoming more vocal about defending national interests. In 2021, the Norwegian government proposed legislation requiring universities to apply for an export control license before exporting knowledge. However, more rigorous securitization of research does not benefit the overall scientific effort.
It is sound practice due to existing domestic law and export controls to allow for the dual-use aspect of research, that is, research that can be used for both civilian and military applications. Moreover, even without export controls, there is sometimes a real risk that some research projects (whether intentional or not) contribute directly to the development of weapons. This also needs to be considered by researchers.
That said, a more complete understanding of what constitutes dual-use due diligence and an awareness of proactive efforts to manage the ways in which such issues impact research on a general level. is required.
Danger of unclear definitions
Promoting securitization based on vague broad examples, ill-defined definitions, and identified risks is not a meaningful response.
For example, the Swedish Security Service said in its annual report, “Action by dictatorships is becoming increasingly aggressive. They will use any means to achieve their goals. They are aggressive, free to We will use whatever resources we have at our disposal.This threat is further influenced by the fact that authoritarian states are stepping up cooperation to strengthen their own nations.”
In light of that statement, one wonders what actions researchers can take without risking the disqualification of an entire country or scientific field.
Research should be restricted or regulated for security reasons and ethical dumping or human rights violations should be avoided, but securitization poses a general challenge as its impact can be very blunt. The increase in securitization and emphasis on risk management tends to have a negative impact on research. For example, in the United States, the legislative efforts and directives codified in the Science and Chips Act, NSPM-33, and the China Initiative have had both “good” and “bad” impacts, encouraging research cooperation between the United States and China. have hindered.
In practice, limiting scientific cooperation is never easy, but there are concerns that tough laws and sanctions could have an impact (since the war in Ukraine began, in the case of Russia ).
Prerequisites for research cooperation
Against the backdrop of concerns about declining national competitiveness and perceived lack of reciprocity in cooperation, the main purpose of securitization is to reduce civil-military amalgamation, or is it simply a manifestation of political strength? Are securitization decisions based on an understanding of how science works, and are researchers themselves acting cautiously?
Regardless of the answers to these questions, the underlying assumptions of international research collaboration need to be considered if solutions to build safer, better, reciprocal and accountable international research relationships are to be implemented. I have.
Research collaborations arise because there are potential benefits for both researchers and, in turn, for the organizations to which they belong. The most meaningful collaborations occur when there is mutual exchange. This also creates opportunities for long-term planning where institutional and organizational implications may be considered.
Furthermore, researchers identify with their specialty and peers rather than their nationality. While it is true that researchers also recognize that they are citizens of a particular country, patterns of collaboration suggest that collaboration is primarily for the benefit of the research project and the individual researcher. If so, they generally consider their professional identity to be international. .
Moreover, the transfer of knowledge is usually not confidential. Most of the knowledge produced through research is openly accessible through publications or disseminated at academic conferences such as conferences.
For the most part, international cooperation is relatively straightforward from a dual-use or ethical dumping standpoint. Moreover, technological development and innovation are non-linear processes in time and space. It is difficult, and sometimes almost impossible, to predict what applications and functions basic research will have in the future.
An open system is the best solution for developing science, tackling global challenges, and building national well-being, but for the global scientific system to remain somewhat open, several groups must requires more thought and professional judgment from
These groups are:
research community
Researchers are well-positioned to assess the risks associated with their field because they are experts when it comes to their subject field, but they are generally more open to broader considerations that affect their work, including geopolitics. We need to better understand our portfolio of matters.
It is important to have a forum to discuss how existing railings and guidelines on research security, responsible internationalization and research integrity work together and are used in international projects.
University management, academies, and other professional networks play an important role in developing routines and good practice by guiding useful information and providing opportunities for dialogue and training.
politicians and government
Government officials play a role in articulating various rules and expectations for the research sector. But they also need to be more informed about the different forms collaborations take, how they create value, and the trade-offs made by taking risks.
A clearer explanation of the problem is often needed. Further dialogue between researchers and political groups is needed to develop a better understanding at the political and governmental level of how international research collaboration is initiated and carried out in practice.
Politicians also need to better understand the implications of different measures and know whether proposed measures meaningfully address the problems they are trying to solve.
research funders
Research funders also have an important role to play. Funders can make requests through various funding mechanisms. But some research funders have concerns about the impact of increased scrutiny on research freedom.
In fact, funders are already asking for evidence of reflection on aspects such as integrity as part of the merit review. In addition, requiring rigorous consideration of gray area issues in international research collaborations is a good idea and would enhance the quality and integrity of research.
Codifying such reflexive practices can be done by research funders and has the potential to reduce the risks inherent in international collaboration due to differences in laws, incentive structures, political or cultural systems. I have.
Tommy Shih is an Associate Professor at Lund University, Sweden.
