Latitudes: In Safeguarding Science, U.S. Must Not 'Throw the Innovation Baby Out With the Bathwater'

One on one with a key federal official on research-security policy. Plus, Congress takes on colleges’ foreign-funds reporting. ADVERTISEMENT [Latitudes Logo]( Did someone forward you this newsletter? [Sign up free]( to receive your own copy. You can now read The Chronicle on [Apple News]( [Flipboard]( and [Google News](. 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](. ADVERTISEMENT NEWSLETTER [Sign Up for the Teaching Newsletter]( Find insights to improve teaching and learning across your campus. Delivered on Thursdays. To read this newsletter as soon as it sends, [sign up]( to receive it in your email inbox. Congressional Republicans want details about colleges’ reporting of foreign funds Members of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce are pressing Department of Education officials to explain how they are enforcing a federal law that requires colleges to report large gifts and contracts from overseas. In an [April 5 letter]( to Miguel Cardona, the secretary of education, the panel’s Republican members ask for details about money and resources his department has dedicated to monitoring and administering Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, which mandates that colleges report foreign funding they receive of $250,000 or more. In addition to asking about budgeting and staffing, the letter also requests status updates for a number of [investigations]( opened under President Donald J. Trump into the compliance of prominent research universities, including Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, with Section 117. The Trump administration had ratcheted up oversight of foreign-funds reporting, alleging that colleges had been lax in their disclosure. In response, higher-education groups accused officials of [moving the goalposts]( by interpreting Section 117 in such an expansive and onerous way that it could discourage international collaboration. The Biden administration has said little publicly about the issue, but last year Department of Education officials told college leaders that they planned to [close]( outstanding Section 117 investigations. The current status of those inquiries is uncertain — on its [website]( the department indicates that probes of four universities have been closed but includes no information about where things stand for 15 others. What does seem clear: Republican lawmakers plan to continue scrutiny of grants and other financial support colleges received from foreign sources. FROM THE CHRONICLE STORE [Reimagining the Student Experience - The Chronicle Store]( [Trouble at the Top]( Many leaders and industry observers say it has been decades since the heat on presidents has been this intense. [Order your copy today]( to explore what today’s presidents are up against, how things are changing, and how to navigate new challenges. Around the globe The Education Department, in a blog post, walked back regulatory guidance that many feared [would chill]( international programs and student recruitment. The guidance would have, among other things, defined as “third-party servicers” entities that provide “any percentage” of educational and instructional content, and would have prohibited colleges from working with foreign providers or those located overseas on Title IV-eligible programs. The April 11 [blog post]( stated that study-abroad programs and recruitment of students ineligible for Title IV aid were not subject to third-party-servicer requirements. The Education Department is also amending selection criteria for the 2023 Fulbright-Hays award for international research after a federal judge [ruled in favor]( of applicants who said they were penalized because they were native or heritage speakers of the foreign language in which they planned to do fieldwork. The Federal Register [notice]( alters the criteria for current applicants to the prestigious fellowship while a [permanent rule change]( moves through the regulatory process. A former University of Kansas researcher is asking to have a conviction of making a false statement on a research-disclosure form [dismissed](. A judge has already [thrown out]( more serious China Initiative convictions against Feng (Franklin) Tao. The U.S. Department of State will extend special student relief for [Ukrainian students]( in the United States on J-1 exchange visas to allow them to take reduced course loads and to work on or off campus. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced that the [Homeland Security Academic Partnership Council]( will be the new name of a committee that advises agency officials on international-student and other education-related issues. The department said last year that it was [reviving]( the group, which includes representatives from colleges, public schools, and law enforcement, after it was disbanded under the Trump administration. A special Association of American Universities committee will study ways to expand research and academic partnerships with [India](. Ukraine was once a popular destination for international students. Now students from Africa who fled the war said they are [unwelcome]( in Europe. The Russian Prosecutor General’s Office has designated Moscow’s Free University as an “[undesirable]( organization, preventing it from all activities and operations. The government previously blacklisted [Bard College]( which had a long track record of working in the country. Iranian officials said female students who don’t follow strict rules for wearing a [hijab]( or headscarf, could be barred from campus. Chinese authorities plan to evaluate universities’ political education and other ideological activities on a new [ideological index](. Private tutoring companies that once prepared Chinese students to study abroad have [shifted their strategy]( amid tightening regulation of their industry to try to work with the children of Chinese expats in the United States, Canada, and other countries. Thanks for reading. I always welcome your feedback and ideas for future reporting, so drop me a line at karin.fischer@chronicle.com. You can also connect with me on [Twitter]( or [LinkedIn](. If you like this newsletter, please share it with colleagues and friends. They can [sign up here.]( ADVERTISEMENT NEWSLETTER FEEDBACK [Please let us know what you thought of today's newsletter in this three-question survey](. This newsletter was sent to {EMAIL}. [Read this newsletter on the web](. [Manage]( your newsletter preferences, [stop receiving]( this email, or [view]( our privacy policy. © 2023 [The Chronicle of Higher Education]( 1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037