Over the past two years, colleges and universities have become increasingly aware of the threat of foreign influence and interference on our campuses. Congress and the Trump administration have warned our campuses about their vulnerability to the theft of intellectual property and improper influence by foreign entities. The major federal funders of university research, such as the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Defense, along with the national security and intelligence agencies, including the FBI and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, have been working to address these concerns. The most frequently cited perpetrator is China, although Russia and Iran are also mentioned.
The federal agencies publicly recognize the value of international collaboration in research and education, but they also have suggested that our universities need to take steps to address these threats, as well as ensuring compliance with existing rules. Safeguards already exist to protect research with military applications, including “dual use” technologies that can have both commercial and military applications. But some have suggested that these safeguards be expanded to include emerging technologies and sensitive fields of study. This has become a debate about international competitiveness as well as national security.
This issue—which we call “science and security”—has produced hundreds of pages of communications from think tanks, nonprofit agencies, universities, national associations, and of course the government agencies themselves. This is now a global issue, and many of these have come from outside the United States. As Samuel Stanley, former president of Stony Brook University and current president of Michigan State University, and ACE President Ted Mitchell wrote in an op-ed in The Hill, striking the balance between measures designed to protect U.S. science from exploitation versus the free exchange of ideas and talent that enables great science, is absolutely critical for U.S. leadership in innovation and discovery.
The first section of this resource page is devoted to U.S. government statements and guidance, including letters, web resources, and studies. For example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has focused on university faculty who have received grants from NIH while also accepting funding from foreign institutions, and not disclosing this information on grant applications. NIH and NSF have also discovered issues within the peer review system, including improperly sharing funding proposals with researchers in foreign countries.
The intelligence community has provided several case studies of inappropriate and sometimes criminal activity, and they have provided guidelines and recommendations for universities. The FBI urges institutions to form close partnerships with their regional offices, and they have cited the work of Texas A&M University, Ohio State University, and the University of Kansas as models for collaboration with the Bureau.
Because China has been frequently cited as the primary source of inappropriate behavior, a number of studies have taken a more comprehensive look at the bilateral relationship. The National Committee on U.S.-China Relations has taken this approach and makes the important point that faculty with expertise on China are often not consulted on issues related to engagement with China, including policies on research collaboration.
Inside and outside the United States, think tanks also have weighed in on this issue. A report from the UK expands the scope of the problem to include risk to the reputation of the university, especially when partnering with universities that are implicated in the violation of human rights. The Center for Strategic and International Studies takes a broader, more historic view, emphasizing the benefits of international research collaboration and arguing for a balanced approach.
Finally, several national higher education associations in the United States have produced guidelines and recommendations, including ACE, the Association of American Universities (AAU), and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU). Many of our members have issued their own statements on the science and security issue, in most cases affirming their commitment to remaining open to research collaboration across national borders.