Agenda

Navigating security guidelines and policies is an ever-expanding task for research performing organisations, and the need for support in implementing these frameworks is deeply felt among universities and research institutes. Umbrella organisations can act as effective interfaces between governments and the research community, contributing key insights via consultation and co-creation processes, as well as negotiating or defining boundaries and responsibilities. How are national rectors’ conferences performing this role and how can they best work together and exchange experiences? How do they help their members set up and maintain research security systems, and how can these systems work more synergistically across Europe?

International mobility ensures a circulation of skills and ideas around the world, and ‘brain circulation’ in the global research system where researchers follow the best science and the best resources.

International mobility to our universities is to be welcomed and celebrated as essential to our research and innovation base and success. However, there are concerns being raised relating to research security risks, transnational repression and vetting processes for overseas researchers and students.

Students and researchers from overseas are an integral part of our communities. People are an organisation's biggest asset, however, in some cases, they can also pose an insider risk. As organisations implement increasingly sophisticated physical and cyber security measures to protect their assets from external threats, the recruitment of insiders becomes a more attractive option for hostile actors attempting to gain access. How can we support our students and colleagues whilst addressing concerns around malign overseas talent and scholarship programmes and insider threats?

Our session will seek to discuss some of these issues in this rapidly developing area.

If we want our researchers to consider (national) security implications of their international collaborations, they need help from the government. They need (threat) information and guidance and advice which enable them to take informed decisions. However, organising an effective research security support structure is not an easy task. How to share intelligence and other sensitive information with researchers? How to ensure the ultimate responsibility for international cooperation remains with the research institute and that government advice and guidance do not affect academic freedom and institutional autonomy?

The Netherlands, the UK and the U.S. all have created dedicated research security support structures, each in their own way. The Netherlands launched its contact point for knowledge security ‘Loket Kennisveiligheid’ in January 2022, as a government advice desk for international R&I cooperation. In March the same year, the UK put in place its Research Collaboration Advice Team (RCAT), consisting of regional advice hubs across the country. In summer 2024, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) signed a grant agreement with a consortium of Universities to establish a SECURE Centre.

This session is about explaining how the respective support structures work and what the experiences have been to date. The session’s aim is to inspire those countries that are still reflecting on how to support their researchers effectively to take risk-informed decisions when collaborating internationally.

This workshop will explore how universities can begin implementing research security measures by giving an overview of research security strategies and best practices from YERUN and CESAER members as well as the lessons learned in the build-up phase of their strategy. The speakers will be experts from universities working on research security. Some of the questions of the panel discussion will revolve around the future and emerging challenges that universities need to be prepared for and the role of the EU in addressing these challenges. The aim would be to engage in knowledge exchange and to discuss on, for instance:

• (a) how can universities effectively take their first steps in addressing research security?

• (b) what are the best practices and measures, suitable tools or instruments that you have in place as an institution?

• (c) should research security approaches differ based on institutional profile (e.g. technical vs SSH-focused universities)?

• (d) how important is institutional commitment?

• (e) how do universities reach the next phase of research security, and where are we moving towards?

Safeguarding research integrity and innovation is essential for maintaining Europe's competitive edge. This session focuses on in-tegrating security measures into our research culture while contrib-uting to the broader goals of innovation, economic growth, and re-silience outlined in the EU's Competitiveness Compass. Moreover, the workshop will showcase examples of self-regulation in research security, demonstrating how European Research Per-forming Organizations are taking proactive steps to address security concerns. Participants will discuss the support and instru-ments needed at the European level to help research performers comply with their duties while preserving freedom of research and protecting excellence.

The Nordic countries deal with research security within a wider framework of responsible internationalisation or responsible research collaboration.

The responsible element implies that all international cooperation shall be based on fundamental values and principles – including academic freedom, institutional autonomy and open research – as well as broader national interests, including national security.

It is a comprehensive concept with many dimensions. It is also a whole-of-government approach where all elements of government join together, research and innovation sector and security services alike.

Academic freedom and research security are often seen as separate or even conflicting priorities. However, these principles are intrinsically linked and should be mutually reinforcing. This session will explore how safeguarding academic freedom is essential to maintaining both research security and integrity, particularly in today’s rapidly evolving geopolitical and technological landscape, and how research security measures should be designed and implemented to enable international collaboration.

Building on ALLEA's and Science Europe’s ongoing work and past collaborations, the session aims to discuss concerns on research security that may come at the expense of academic freedom, to approach misconceptions, and foster a more integrated understanding of these principles.

Experts from diverse fields, from both organisations, will share insights and propose actionable strategies to protect academic freedom while ensuring research security and upholding the highest standards of integrity.

To ensure our technological sovereignty, it is crucial to prioritise re-search security. Research Performing Organisations (RPOs) collaborate extensively with industry partners (under confidential agreements, trade secrets, etc.) as well as with governments on sensitive technological de-velopments (such as space, defence, nuclear, etc.). Consequently, RPOs need to possess specific capabilities to manage complex requirements, safeguarding their research and technological advancements, as well as controlling access to their Research and Technology Infrastructures. In this context, RPOs are quite advanced in managing various aspects of research security, including technology export control, which can serve as valuable examples for other stakeholders. This session aims to share best practices from practitioners to practitioners.

Developing comprehensive national approaches to research security

One of the challenges countries face when addressing research security is that it requires the involvement of multiple Ministries and Agencies as well as of all parts of the R&I sector. This calls for a comprehensive approach that clearly defines roles and responsibilities of all actors involved and agreeing on a broad mix of initiatives and policy measures to raise awareness and build resilience across the country.

Germany, Italy and Japan all are in the process of developing such a national approach to research security. Germany started a broad federal-government-led stakeholder process last October which should lead to the conclusion of a Memorandum of Understanding by the end of 2025, the Italian government conducted a sector-wide survey and is now launching its national framework, and Japan’s Cabinet Office, CAO, established an expert committee to discuss on a Guidance for Preventing the Leakage of Critical Technologies in April 2025, and JST, the Funding Agency, started JST-TRUST, a new initiative to ensure research security in some selected funding calls as a trial.

In this session, these countries will explain why and how they launched these processes, their scope and critical success factors, which can serve as advice to countries who are considering launching similar processes.

Research funding (RFOs) and Research Performing organisations (RPOs) share responsibilities to safely navigate the increasingly complex landscape of international collaboration, support researchers and provide the necessary in-formation and structures to effectively address risks.

In this process, RFOs and RPOs require the support of governmental actors to develop tools for risk appraisal, evaluate security risks in partnerships, and define mitigation measures.

This session explores the shared responsibilities and mutual expectations between RFOs and RPOs, while highlighting practical examples and good practices of national research organisations.

The discussion will be informed by the outcomes of a series of workshops of Science Europe’s dedicated Taskforce on Research Security.

Guiding questions for the discussion include:

• 1) What is the relation of RPOs and RFOs with the national governments?

• 2) Despite varying approaches to research security, how could a common framework for practical risk-assessment tools be developed?

• 3) What are the potential barriers to collaboration between RFOs and RPOs?

• 4) What are the challenges for international collaboration and also for Open science?

Multi-regional discussion between European, African and Latin American stakeholders to consider potential opportunities and impacts of enhanced research security in one region affecting another. What specific effects could research security have on Europe’s international cooperation with Lower-and-middle-income countries?

When geopolitical tensions are enmeshed with inequalities across global knowledge societies, how important are equitable partnerships and capacity strengthening for establishing security for much needed impact from research?

What reasonable adjustments do governments, funders and universities need to make when promoting Europe’s interests, protecting against risks and partnering with the broadest possible range of countries to address shared concerns and interests?

Developing research security policies is not a one-size-fits-all exercise. To be effective, policies and initiatives need to take national circumstances and characteristics of the political system into account. How to make optimal use of structures that already exist? How to ensure measures are tailor-made to the national setting?

While the political systems of France, Czechia and Switzerland may be quite different, they all developed approaches that work in their respective national settings. Already in 2012, France introduced a sophisticated law-based system to protect sensitive research facilities, requiring those research institutes to invest in security expertise and robust safeguards. Its centralised approach provides for consistency and clarity. Czechia has been developing and implementing its research security approach using a broad range of policy instruments, including legal requirements, financial incentives and non-binding guidance. In Switzerland, the approach to research security is more bottom-up, building on initiatives taken by its leading research institutes. Government and university-level working groups are currently developing a common approach for strengthening research security at the institutional level by developing appropriate support structures.

In this session, the ways in which national starting-points and legal traditions can affect and support research security policies are explored. It aims to demonstrate that, while national systems may be different, there are country-specific ways to achieve the goal of responsible internationalisation all the same

Research security in the European Union is substantially framed with the intention of managing the risks related to the undesirable transfer of critical knowledge and technology for military or intelligence purposes. The proposed risk appraisal approach in this context shares many similarities with the due diligence processes commonly seen in export control regulations. This session will explore the intersection between export controls and research security: what is similar, what is different, and how can export controls support research security objectives, and vice versa.

In today’s increasingly complex geopolitical landscape, research security is a growing priority. But how can research organisations and individual researchers meaningfully integrate it without compromising the goals that drive their work: performing excellent, impactful research and innovation in an ethical and sustainable manner?

This session creates space for an open, honest, forward-looking conversation among researchers, institutional leaders, policy makers, and funders across the European R&I ecosystem.

Together, we will explore how research security can be implemented in ways that support - rather than hinder - our shared mission of conducting excellent research.

Can we turn security challenges into opportunities to strengthen trust and uphold values? What practical strategies are emerging across institutions? How can we balance vigilance with collaboration, and adapt without losing sight of our purpose? How can we stay globally competitive while managing raising costs, limited resources, and a growing list of expectations?

Drawing on real-world experiences and grounded discussion, this session invites participants to collectively explore the evolving demands of research security.

The session will follow Chatham House rules, and the reflections gathered will feed into an actionable report.

One of the difficult choices to make when developing measures to safeguard research is whether to assess the risk profile of each project or collaboration separately, or to predefine categories of projects or partners that are by default high-risk or even off-limits (‘black-listing’).

Establishing lists of critical technologies, of countries of concern or of high-risk entities has the benefit of clarity and simplicity. However, when defined too broadly, such lists could be disproportionate and affect academic freedom. And while case-by-case assessments may be the best guarantee for safeguards that are proportionate and effective, there are concerns related to administrative burden and resources needed.

With the introduction of its STRAC policy in 2024, Canada complemented its case-by-case risk assessment framework under the National Security Guidelines for Research Partnerships to further safeguard research with a list-based approach, enhancing its list of sensitive technologies and establishing a list of high-risk entities. While Australia has no formal list of high-risk entities, in 2023 it introduced the List of Critical Technologies in the National Interest to identify priority technologies, and focus efforts to promote and protect them. Australia has also strengthened its resilience in recent years with the introduction of government screening of university partnerships under the Foreign Arrangements Scheme, and of research visas under the Protecting Australia’s Critical Technologies (PACT) Regulations. Australia is also conducting targeted capability testing, capacity building and awareness raising under the University Foreign Interference Taskforce (UFIT), complemented by the Guidelines to Counter Foreign Interference in the Australian University Sector.

In this session, the systems used by the countries will be presented, with a focus on the pros and cons of having lists, on how to ensure project-based risk assessments are carried out efficiently, and on how both options can be leveraged to support a comprehensive research security approach.

Responsible international collaboration in R&I thrives on open collaboration but concerns are rising about security and reciprocity. which a challenge to find a balance between the risks of collaboration and the risks of non-collaboration. If universities and academics are the main actors for international collaboration, what insights can the provide about finding that balance?

How can the R&I sector be enabled to assess and manage research security risks in such a way that avoids inadvertently impacting the capacity of the research community to address shared global challenges and fulfil open science principles for better impact?

How can universities have better access to strategic discussions at national level so that research security enhancements in the short-term set a path towards a culture of responsible internationalisation being actively adopted in the sector for R&I and knowledge valorisation.

Research is increasingly international and more of our staff and students are on the move across all corners of the world and often to nations with very different standards, regulations and laws to our own. In response to this, and a fast-changing geopolitical landscape, RTOs, universities and governments must upgrade their safeguards for overseas travel security due to the risks presented both to researchers and their research. This session seeks to cover 1) the importance of global mobility of EU researchers, 2) what can happen abroad, and 3) What different RTO's and universities are doing to safeguard their researchers whilst abroad.

How to ensure R&I cooperation is safeguarded among international partners, while at the same time avoiding that our safeguarding measures actually make such cooperation more difficult? What role can multilateral organisations play to promote trusted partnerships internationally? What can they do to define common principles and work towards a level-playing-field, and maybe even mutual acceptance of research security requirements?

G7 has worked extensively on the topic of research integrity and security through a series of Ministerial Declarations as well as its SIGRE working group, defining joint principles and creating a virtual academy. OECD addresses research security in the context of its Global Science Forum as well as its STIP Compass. Recently, a dedicated expert working group on research security has been established. NATO, for its part, has discussed the issue in a number of workshops under its Science and Technology Board and is working on guidelines for its research community.

In this session, the work of these three international organisations will be presented, and we will discuss how their initiatives can mutually reinforce each other, promoting trusted partnerships among their respective member countries.