From Awareness to Action: The Evolving Landscape of Research Security in European Academia

This article is based on the research paper “From Awareness to Action: Research Security in Czech and European Academia” by Ivana Karásková and Dominika Remžová, published by the Association for International Affairs (AMO) in April 2025.

As (scientific) collaboration between higher education institutions in Europe and third countries continues to expand, European universities and research institutes are increasingly navigating a delicate balance between the principles of open research and mounting national security concerns. While some countries are leading the way with robust research security frameworks, others continue to lag behind.

In today’s shifting geopolitical landscape, research security has become a key concern within and beyond European academia, aligning with the EU’s broader securitization efforts. Since knowledge production often hinges on international collaboration – including with non-democratic states like China – safeguarding intellectual property, technological innovation, and academic integrity has never been more critical. Our recent policy paper explores how four European countries – the Czech Republic, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom – are addressing these challenges at national, sectoral, and institutional levels, offering recommendations for more comprehensive, balanced, and effective approaches.

The Growing Imperative for Research Security

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has repeatedly stressed the need to strengthen Europe’s technological and industrial base. In her 2025 speech on European competitiveness, she emphasized that although the EU remains an economic leader, it must bridge technological gaps with the US and China to ensure strategic autonomy and reduce external dependencies. Research security has become an integral part of the EU’s broader economic security strategy. As early as 2023, the EU identified ten critical technologies – including AI, advanced semiconductors, quantum technologies, and biotechnology – as areas of heightened risk.

Unlike some global powers that opt for blanket restrictions, the EU and its member states have largely adopted a risk-based, sector-specific approach, aiming to balance openness to international collaboration with the protection of sensitive research.

An Early Start in the United Kingdom

Although no longer an EU member state, the UK has developed one of Europe’s most advanced research security ecosystems. It combines general trusted research guidance with targeted due diligence tools to help universities evaluate international collaborations. The government has actively worked with universities to embed risk management processes while maintaining openness to global partnerships. The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), and the National Protective Security Authority (NPSA) have played central roles, with the NPSA’s trusted research guidelines serving as a key reference point for individual institutions.

Widely publicized security incidents – such as those at Imperial College London – have prompted leading universities to take proactive steps, developing their own internal frameworks. Despite these advancements, challenges remain, especially in funding, as UK universities rely heavily on external funders, including from China, which creates vulnerabilities in the research ecosystem. Moreover, security breaches have revealed a range of issue areas and risks – spanning from self-censorship to data theft and collaboration with military-linked research institutes – that occur across both STEM and non-STEM disciplines, underscoring the need for comprehensive, context-sensitive approaches.

Centralized Coordination in the Netherlands

The Dutch have established a centralized advisory body – the National Contact Point for Knowledge Security – that provides universities and research institutes with both strategic and operational guidance. The Dutch model is notable for its collaborative nature, with national guidelines developed through partnerships between the government and academia. The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science oversees compliance, while implementation remains the responsibility of individual institutions. Similar to the UK, recurring security incidents at Dutch universities highlight the ongoing need for both awareness-raising and improved implementation of existing measures.

Sector-Specific Measures in Germany

Due to its decentralized higher education landscape, Germany has taken a more sector-specific approach. Leading non-university research institutes such as the Max Planck Society, Fraunhofer Society, Helmholtz Association, and Leibniz Association have developed their own internal research security frameworks. Project management agencies like DLR Projektträger act as intermediaries between the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and individual institutions, especially around China-related concerns.

The German system highlights the importance of sectoral collaboration and tailored security protocols for high-risk fields. However, the absence of a cohesive federal strategy has led to uneven implementation at the institutional level, with universities generally lagging behind their non-university counterparts.

Reactive Development in the Czech Republic

The Czech approach to research security has been largely reactive, with measures implemented in response to specific incidents rather than as part of a proactive strategy. The Ministry of the Interior published the first national-level research security guidelines in 2021, following a case of Chinese interference at Charles University. The university sought guidance from the Ministry, which led to the adoption of the first university-level research security framework –establishing procedures to protect academic freedom, scientific integrity, and intellectual property. While regulatory frameworks and security personnel are now in place, implementation remains inconsistent at the individual researcher level, revealing a significant gap between policy and practice.

Common Challenges Across Europe

Despite different national approaches, European academic institutions face several common challenges in implementing their respective research security measures:

1. 1. Cultural resistance: Many academics view research security policies as bureaucratic burdens that hinder international collaboration. This sentiment is particularly strong in the humanities and social sciences, where securitization is often perceived as a constraint on academic freedom rather than a necessary safeguard.
2. 2. Compliance vs. integration: Institutions often treat research security as a box-ticking exercise rather than a comprehensive risk management strategy, resulting in superficial implementation without the cultural and structural changes needed for effective protection.
3. 3. Knowledge gaps: While there is widespread awareness of research security risks, understanding of how these risks vary by country, discipline, and research topic remains limited.
4. 4. Methodological uncertainty: The absence of a unified methodology for assessing and quantifying risks – and a lack of concrete examples of actual costs – makes it difficult to persuade researchers to take security concerns seriously.

From Policy to Practice: A Balanced Path Forward

The paper advocates for a whole-system approach to research security, integrating clear guidelines, institutional support, financial incentives, and tailored risk assessments that address subject-, issue-, and country-specific risks. To be effective, research security measures must balance academic openness with the protection of sensitive knowledge, embedding security concerns across all levels of the academic ecosystem – including institutional leadership, administrative teams, and individual researchers.

Key recommendations for advancing research security in European academia include:

1. 1. Build a working system that goes beyond awareness: Move past merely adopting policies and hiring personnel to ensure that research security measures translate into fully functional systems understood and applied at the operational level.
2. 2. Encourage academic ownership: Help universities internalize the rationale behind research security measures, making security awareness an integral part of everyday academic practice.
3. 3. Move beyond binary approach: Shift from binary thinking about collaboration with certain countries toward case-by-case evaluations that consider both risks and benefits in context.
4. 4. Deal with real-world issues: Ensure that guidelines account not only for technological threats but also for academic integrity concerns, ideological pressure, and soft influence operations across disciplines.
5. 5. Improve due diligence: Develop systems where research security is embedded into institutional decision-making at all levels, supported by better communication between security personnel and academic leadership.

While European academic institutions have embraced the rhetoric of countering foreign interference, efforts remain largely declaratory without deeper institutionalization. The challenge is no longer merely raising awareness or introducing regulations but ensuring that research security becomes integral to institutional culture and decision-making processes. Effective implementation requires bridging the gap between formal hierarchies and the often-decentralized nature of academic life. Policy decisions taken at the top must trickle down to individual researchers and research teams – the front lines of international collaboration.

As geopolitical competition intensifies, European academia must develop more sophisticated approaches to research security – ones that safeguard critical research and technology while preserving the openness that drives scientific progress. By learning from varied national experiences and adopting tailored, balanced measures, academic institutions can protect their research ecosystems while maintaining their global engagement. The path forward requires not just policies and guidelines but a fundamental shift in how academic institutions conceptualize and practice security in an increasingly complex global environment.