A conversation with the NSF’s chief of research security
It’s been more than a year since the U.S. Department of Justice announced the end of the China Initiative, the federal-government investigation into academic and economic espionage by China.
The announcement has brought an end to high-profile prosecutions of scientists, and government data document a decline in new research-security cases. The rhetoric has also moderated since Trump-administration officials routinely lambasted college leaders for their naïveté in working with Chinese universities and other foreign partners. Higher education may be in less of a defensive posture than those earlier, more-adversarial days.
It would be a mistake, however, to conflate the conclusion of the formal Justice Department inquiry with the end of concerns about research security or of scrutiny of American higher education’s relationship with China or other countries “of concern.” Government agencies have been crafting new programs and policies to safeguard research and determine risk, and colleges have been developing institutional strategies that protect intellectual property from potential bad actors abroad without cutting off global scientific and technological collaboration.
“Maybe the volume has been turned down a little, but the tune is still playing,” Jane Gatewood, vice provost for global engagement at the University of Rochester, told me for a new article on what comes after the China Initiative.
Indeed, one particularly striking aspect was the China Initiative’s lingering impact on Chinese and Asian American scientists: Of a half-dozen scholars of Chinese descent that I interviewed, none said they were currently willing to apply for federal grants, because of their anxiety they could be racially profiled.
As part of my reporting, I sat down with Rebecca Keiser, chief of research security strategy and policy for the National Science Foundation, or NSF, who plays an important role in helping shape an approach to research security for a key science-funding agency. Only a portion of our wide-ranging interview could make it into my Chronicle article, so I wanted to share a few additional insights from my conversation with Keiser with Latitudes readers.
Undisclosed conflicts could jeopardize public confidence in research outcomes. For individual scientists, having foreign governments or other entities lay claim to their cutting-edge work could “ruin” their careers, Keiser said. But she said she was concerned that research-security issues could have a broader impact on public perceptions, not just of federally funded research but of research over all. “If we can’t trust the way the research is conducted, we can’t trust what other ties that the researcher might have, then we can’t trust the research.”
Keiser said she was worried about how research-security investigations affect Chinese and Asian American scientists. Federal officials “do need to listen and to hear them,” she told me. One takeaway from her own listening sessions is a better understanding of the China Initiative and other research-security investigations in the contexts of both current anti-Asian sentiment and historical suspicion of and discrimination against scholars of Asian descent. As the NSF continues to develop research-security policy, Keiser said she wants to fund research projects that “identify and help mitigate potential areas of bias.”
When it comes to research security, she wants a more collaborative approach. “I really do view this as a partnership between us and U.S. research institutions,” Keiser said. She said the federal government can do more to provide colleges with more information about the “pros and cons” of working with certain foreign partners. For example, she hopes a new NSF risk-assessment center would be able to provide something akin to a national-intelligence estimate, spelling out the potential risks of working with overseas universities or institutes.
It will be tougher to navigate gray areas, but heightened research-security concerns shouldn’t cut off international-academic partnerships. Keiser said she does not want to see the U.S. government go down the road of making more research classified. Instead, she hopes there can be more discussion about policies that strike a balance between protection and collaboration, both across federal-government agencies and with higher education. “I am very serious about the need to do something without going overboard and closing things off,” Keiser said. “I think closing areas of research off entirely would throw the U.S. innovation baby out with the bathwater.”
Meanwhile, check out my article on the current state of research security here.
