Tighter research security has ‘chilling effect’ on collaboration

Heightened research security measures can have a “chilling effect” on collaboration, a report says, ahead of an anticipated UK government strategy on the topic.

The report, published by the University of Manchester Institute of Innovation Research on 24 September, aims to provide “robust evidence” on academic research security practice in the UK based on survey responses and interviews. The findings come as the UK government has expressed increasing concern about the risks of research collaborations – including intellectual property theft – with foreign countries such as China.

One important finding of the report is that there is “some evidence of a chilling effect” on collaborative behaviours. Academics reported “reduced freedom to choose collaborators and concerns about ethnic or national stereotyping” as the costs of increased research security measures, according to the survey. Of the 474 respondents, almost one-third of interviewees expressed concern about research security policies and practices constraining academics’ ability to choose the best scientific research partners.

One academic said of Chinese universities: “These are now some of the world’s best universities and the best academics. We will be damaging our competitiveness if we’re not able to work with them.” They were speaking as one of 31 interviewees.

Another academic said: “This kind of immediate targeting of [a Chinese student] because of his nationality does feel inherently discriminatory.” One academic, who had supervised several Chinese PhD students, said: “I think [Chinese] students already feel judged at every step. And in this case, I think it’s not easy for them.”

The report is co-authored by Andrew James, professor of innovation management and policy, Cornelia Lawson, professor of economics of science and innovation, Xiuqin Li, a research fellow, and Xinger Wei, a research assistant.

For universities, many academics reported having “negative” views of research security administrative support, complaining of “slow, time-consuming and inefficient” administrative procedures.

One academic said: “Our university conducts due diligence assessments, which seem to take them a very long time…it then adds an additional layer of complexity and time and things being dragged out when it is an international partner that we’re working with.”

Nearly a third of survey respondents also reported that university support had gaps in the knowledge they need in the areas of regulation and understanding of a given scientific field.

However, respondents listed the benefits of increased measures as “the protection of research, data, intellectual property and institutional reputation”.

In their concluding remarks, the co-authors recommend that government should provide clearer and more practical guidance on “how to interpret research security risks and expectations in different collaboration context”. They identify the upcoming research security strategy as an opportunity for the government to implement these suggestions.

They also say that funders and universities should do more work on communicating the benefits of research security for academics.

frances.jones@timeshighereducation.com