Recalibrated responses needed to a global research landscape in flux

ABSTRACT

When engaging in international collaboration, researchers and research institutions have to relate to a great range of differences in legislation, scientific practices, incentive systems, and cultural norms. The research landscape has become even more complex in the last decade, and the gray zones at the intersections of a diverse set of institutional contexts may be used to push boundaries. The focus of earlier efforts seeking to harmonize views on scientific integrity in an international context was more limited. Moreover, the guiding research norms have been primarily shaped by a US–European science duopoly. The rise of China has, however, created a multipolar research landscape. As a response to recent geopolitical developments and changes in the global research landscape, guidelines are starting to emerge, especially in the West, that seek to guide research behaviors in a turbulent world. These guidelines collectively identify integral issues to consider, such as research integrity, academic freedom, export control, national security, data security, and intellectual property rights. The plethora of considerations required cause contradictory advice and the research community faces considerable challenges in implementing such guidelines. Therefore more work is needed to guide research relationships in an uncertain world.

KEYWORDS:

• International research
• new norms
• geopolitics
• security
• open science

Disclosure statement

The author is a consultant to the Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education.

Notes

1. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Cybersecurity/Documents/National_Strategies_Repository/China_2006.pdf

2. An example is the “China Initiative” in the United States that was an effort driven by the Department of Justice to identify Chinese research espionage. The last few years has also seen considerable escalation in the rhetoric and actions of the United States, China and European Union to encourage and push scientific organizations to adhere to national/regional interests.

3. Open vs. Closed: Scientific activity is associated with an open system that combines resources and ideas across networks covering many institutions in an international context. Nonetheless, research per se is primarily funded in a national context. Hence, national governments tend to see scientific research as a national resource, where the ambition to strengthen national competitiveness results in a closed system. Individual responsibility vs. state involvement: In cases where measures are voluntaristic, the response can be left up to the individual, as is commonly the case during the initial ethical review, or when deciding which applicants to accept as researchers. At the other end, the government – from regulators or local authorities all the way up to national security agencies or the political executive – may set requirements. Requirement-based or discretionary: Methods employed to meet the challenges can be based on voluntary discretion, including the decisions of individual academics and collectives who voluntarily align with particular positions and practices. Voluntary measures go beyond legislative frameworks that enforce compliance, or in extreme cases, direct government vetoes over research projects.

4. Some examples are documents from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Human Rights Watch, the Hague Center for Strategic Studies, etc.

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.