Conversation with NSF’s Research Security Officer
It’s been over a year since the U.S. Department of Justice announced the end of the China Initiative, a federal investigation into China’s academic and economic espionage.
The announcement put an end to high-profile prosecutions of scientists and government data document a decline in new research security incidents. Rhetoric has also eased since Trump administration officials regularly accused university leaders of naivety in working with Chinese universities and other foreign partners. may have taken a less defensive stance than in the more hostile times of .
But it would be a mistake to confuse the conclusions of a formal Justice Department investigation with concerns about research safety and the end of scrutiny of US higher education’s relationship with China and other “concerned” countries. Government agencies are creating new programs and policies to protect research and determine risks, and universities are seeking to protect themselves from potential bad actors abroad without cutting off global scientific and technological cooperation. We develop organizational strategies to protect intellectual property.
Jane Gatewood, Vice President for Global Engagement at the University of Rochester, told me for a new article on what happens after the China Initiative.
In fact, one particularly striking aspect was the lingering impact of the China Initiative on Chinese and Asian American scientists. Ethnically profiled.
As part of my report, I spoke with Rebecca Keiser, Director of Research Security Strategy and Policy at the National Science Foundation (NSF).Only some of our extensive interviews were able to get into my Chronicle I read the article and wanted to share some additional insights from my conversation with Kaiser latitude reader.
Undisclosed conflicts can undermine public confidence in research results. For individual scientists, letting foreign governments and other bodies claim cutting-edge research can “ruin” their careers, Kaiser said. But she said she was concerned that research safety issues could have a broader impact on public perception of research as a whole, not just federally funded research. “If you don’t trust the way the research is conducted, if you don’t trust the other connections the researcher may have, you can’t trust the research.”
Kaiser said he worries about how research security investigations will affect Chinese and Asian-American scientists. Federal officials “must listen and be heard,” she told me. Being able to better understand the China Initiative and other research security investigations in the context of both historical allegations and discrimination. As the NSF continues to develop its research security policy, Kaiser says he wants to fund research projects that “help identify and mitigate potential areas of bias.”
When it comes to research security, she wants a more collaborative approach. “I see this as a partnership between us and US research institutions,” said Kaiser. She said the federal government could do more to provide universities with more information about the “pros and cons” of working with certain foreign partners. We hope the NSF Center for Risk Assessment can provide something similar to national intelligence agency estimates that describe the potential risks of working with foreign universities and research institutes.
Navigating gray areas will be more difficult, but growing concerns about research security should not break international academic partnerships. Kaiser said she didn’t want to see the U.S. government go down the road of declassifying even more research. “I am very serious about the need to do something without going overboard and ending things. “I think closing the research field outright would throw America’s innovation babies out with the bathwater.”
In the meantime, check out my article on the state of research security.
