Ground Research Security in Science, Not Speculation

This brief is part of “Election 2024: Policy Playbook,” a series by Rice University and the Baker Institute that offers critical context, analysis, and recommendations to inform policymaking in the United States and Texas.

The Big Picture

• International collaboration is essential for advancing science and innovation, as well as for addressing global challenges.
• Geopolitics has impacted how governments view scientific exchange, introducing the notion of U.S. research security — the protection of research from misuse, theft, or exploitation.
• Changes to research security policy risk damaging long-standing research partnerships critical to American economic competitiveness and scientific leadership — especially partnerships between the United States and China.
• Current research security policies must undergo thorough evaluation using scientifically rigorous methodologies. The development and implementation of new policies must be driven by empirical evidence rather than suppositions.

Summarizing the Debate

International scientific collaboration is critical for addressing global challenges, from climate change and food and water security to public health and economic prosperity. The global scientific research system relies on a culture of openness, which increases the quality of science and facilitates the wide dissemination of outcomes and public benefits. However, open research collaboration introduces risks to scientific integrity, adversely impacting national competitiveness and potentially undermining shared values of fairness, transparency, and accountability.

Research security refers broadly to the protection of intellectual property and safeguarding of federally-funded research from undue foreign influence, including espionage targeting the academic sector, trade theft, and breaches of peer review integrity. In the U.S., research security has emerged as a central focus of national policy discussions, due in part to geopolitical tension and economic competition with China in key technology sectors. To address these concerns, the U.S. government established a new research security policy through the 2021 National Security Presidential Memorandum 33 (NSPM-33), the research security provisions of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, and the July 2024 guidelines for academic institutions published by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).

While there is broad acceptance that research security concerns are warranted, the concept of research security remains elusive, encompassing a broad range of unaddressed issues, from understanding the nature, scale, and scope of potential threats to whether research security policies are effectively creating the desired outcomes. Due to the lack of available data and empirical evidence on research security risks, members of the academic community are often at odds with the national security and intelligence community, which advocates for further securitization of U.S. science and innovation — often based on limited or incomplete evidence.

Expert Analysis

The uncertainty of the research security policy landscape threatens the U.S. position as the premiere destination for global scientific talent and risks its economic and technological competitiveness. Several aspects of research security need to be considered collectively as part of examining potential changes and bringing more certainty to research security policy:

• Open science. Nations that support more international research partnerships produce more and higher-impact research.
• Global talent. U.S. research policy, including the Department of Justice’s China Initiative, has had a chilling effect on U.S. science, causing some students and scientists of Chinese descent to leave the country and abruptly slowing the pace of scientific articles coauthored by U.S. and Chinese researchers.
• Brain drain. A recent survey of U.S. scientists of Chinese origin found that nearly 90% wished to contribute to American leadership in science, but that 42% stated that they were afraid to conduct their research in the U.S. and 61% felt pressure to leave the country entirely.
• Economic competitiveness. The protection of U.S. science and our intellectual capital, including students and scientists, promotes national competitiveness. Overzealous protection decreases competitiveness.
• Democratic institutions. Over-securitization and a lack of transparency in policy decision-making can lead to the erosion of our democratic institutions, as well as principles such as academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
• Science over supposition. The nascent field of research security must be driven by science to ensure that policies are consistently administered and effectively create the desired outcomes.

Policy Actions

Federal lawmakers should continue building on recent actions by Congress, the White House, and federal agencies to:

1. Stop all attempts to reinstate the China Initiative. Research security policy should adhere to the statutory language in the CHIPS and Science Act specifying that implementation should “be carried out in a manner that does not target, stigmatize, or discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin.”
2. Standardize research security policy and implementation across federal agencies. OSTP, federal funding agencies, and intelligence and national security agencies all need to establish common, transparent, and publicly-accountable research security practices. These practices should incorporate a due process mechanism and ensure objective evaluation, an appeal process, and consistent application of any corrective measures.
3. Promote “research on research security” to provide an empirical basis for new and existing policy. Data and analysis addressing the nature, scope, and scale of research security threats should inform future decision-making. Research security activities should also be identified, traced, and evaluated for effectiveness.
4. Improve research training for administrators, academic scientists, and industry leaders. Outreach and education about research security, especially in the academic sector, will improve compliance with policy and responsible international collaborations.
5. Develop an international community of practice for research security. Broad international collaboration on research security activities will help establish best practices, effective policy, and the wide adoption of common values of openness, transparency, impartiality, respect, and fairness.

The Bottom Line

The U.S. government must rely on rigorous scientific methodologies to guide the development and implementation of research security policies, ensuring the protection of American science and scientists while maintaining the nation’s global economic and technological competitiveness.

This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.