Research security: from reflection to practice
Research security presents those of us working in knowledge transfer with two distinct but inseparable tasks: building trust and knowing how to protect ourselves.
A few years ago, talking about geopolitics in a university setting sounded like an exaggeration. Not anymore. The pandemic demonstrated the extent to which scientific knowledge is a contested strategic asset. The war in Ukraine accelerated European technological rearmament and the rapprochement between academia and the world of defense. Furthermore, the Trump administration’s policies have shaken alliances and supply chains that seemed immovable. All of this is becoming apparent, in one way or another, in R collaboration agreements with companies, in restrictions on international partners in certain projects, and in the questions that more and more researchers are bringing to us.
Through various events, at UPV Innovación we have been attentive to this evolution. First, with a look at the deep tech ecosystem and what technological sovereignty means for a country. Later, with a debate on how the relationship between knowledge, power, and hegemony has changed, and what it implies for us to have a presence and influence in relevant research fields. The common thread of all this has crystallized into a concept that already appears in European policy documents: research security.
A reality that is taking hold in universities
The Council of the European Union’s Recommendation on research security has officially launched this debate, with suggestions for the European Commission, national governments, and institutions. ‘As open as possible, as closed as necessary’ is the European principle that summarizes both the dilemma and the response. This is not something that will stay in Brussels. The Government of Spain, for its part, has entrusted its implementation to FECYT, which means that in the near future we will see specific policies, guides, and procedures aimed at Spanish universities.
Some institutions have already taken the lead. This year, the Universitat de Barcelona implemented a risk identification mechanism in its international agreements, which takes into account the counterparty’s country and the object of the agreement. At the UPV, we have also initiated an internal reflection to address this identification and to clarify how to participate in dual-use R projects—civil and military—including collaborations with non-European entities. We are not starting from scratch and are already underway.
Two tasks for those of us in transfer
Research security presents those of us working in knowledge transfer with two distinct but inseparable tasks: building trust and knowing how to protect ourselves.
Building trust is the foundation. It means openly declaring objectives in every relationship, without hidden agendas. Getting to know the counterparty and making oneself known. Delivering on promises. Being loyal to those who have trusted us. Respecting others’ intellectual property. Seeking genuinely balanced agreements without abusive clauses. Taking it step by step. Europe has shown for decades that this is the most effective path: research framework programs, Erasmus, and structural funds have woven networks of trust that have done more for peace and prosperity than many diplomatic agreements. Perhaps, however, we had not sufficiently prepared for when that trust fails.
That is why the second task is to protect oneself, and it takes very concrete forms in our daily work: putting collaboration conditions in writing with precision; identifying risks before signing and providing for contingency plans; making use of tools for the protection and exploitation of intellectual and industrial property; not giving more access than necessary to data, results, or facilities; establishing monitoring points in projects; and designing mechanisms that allow for a step back if something deviates from what was agreed. A well-constructed license or collaboration contract is not bureaucracy: it is the instrument that aligns interests, delimits uses, and makes it possible for openness to coexist with responsibility.
Bringing this debate to the entire community
The debate is no longer marginal. It appears in popular science podcasts, in opinion pieces signed by researchers, and in forums for transfer managers like Redtransfer last week. That is a good sign. But our ambition at UPV Innovación goes further: we want this reflection to reach beyond management circles or those of us already working in transfer. We want it to reach research groups, doctoral students, laboratory technicians, and management and administrative staff. We want security to be part of the culture of innovation and research at the UPV and its environment.
Not to generate alarm or to introduce barriers where there are none, but so that every researcher can ask themselves—with the support of research and transfer management staff—the questions that this new context raises: who am I collaborating with and under what conditions? What uses could my research have beyond its initial purpose? What should I know before signing an agreement with a foreign entity? A university community that incorporates these questions into its daily culture is better prepared, and is also freer and more secure.
The next date for this debate will be June 18 at the UPV Innovación Forum Side Event. Join us !
With the support of:
