1

Introduction

In recent years, concerns have grown about foreign actors exploiting the openness of the U.S. research ecosystem to misappropriate scientific and technological information to enhance their nations’ scientific, economic, and military capabilities. In response, new and enhanced research security measures have been put in place to protect federally funded academic research.¹ Measures have been promulgated through legislation and executive actions.²

Research security requirements for academic institutions currently include research security training, disclosure of funding sources in applications for federal research and development (R&D) awards, and the

___________________

¹ For the purposes of this proceedings, research security is defined as “safeguarding the research enterprise against the misappropriation of research and development to the detriment of national or economic security, related violations of research integrity, and foreign government interference.” See Joint Committee on the Research Environment Subcommittee on Research Security. 2022, January. Guidance for Implementing National Security Presidential Memorandum 33 (NSPM-33) on National Security Strategy for United States Government-Supported Research and Development, p. 24, https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/010422-NSPM-33-Implementation-Guidance.pdf.

² See, e.g., various National Defense Authorization Acts, the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 (https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr4346/BILLS-117hr4346enr.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com), National Security Presidential Memorandum 33 (NSPM-33) (https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-united-states-government-supported-research-development-national-security-policy), and its implementation guidance (https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/010422-NSPM-33-Implementation-Guidance.pdf).

development of comprehensive research security plans focused on cybersecurity, foreign travel security, insider threat awareness training, and export control training and compliance.³ These requirements are being implemented, and additional requirements are being contemplated.

To consider the impacts of current and potential research security requirements, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened, on September 16–17, 2024, a 2-day public meeting of experts (MOE) to scope out topics and issues for a workshop that would consider how best to assess the effects of research security efforts in higher education.⁴ The MOE considered working definitions, types, and goals of research security; potential frameworks for understanding research security efforts in higher education; and lessons learned from other types of related assessments.⁵

This proceedings describes the presentations and discussions at the workshop, which was organized by a National Academies–appointed planning committee and held on May 22–23, 2025 in Washington, DC.⁶ The event focused on potential measures of effectiveness and performance and the data needed to assess research security and protection efforts in higher education by a range of federal agencies.⁷ While the primary focus of the expert meeting and workshop was research security and protection efforts at the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), initiatives at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other federal agencies were also considered.

Using the workshop discussions as input, in September 2025 a follow-up public MOE conveyed the views of individual experts on how DOD specifically might organize and conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of its research security and protection initiatives, with reference to initiatives at other federal agencies, as appropriate.⁸

___________________

³ See https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-Issues/Science-Security/Actions-Taken-Research-Security.pdf. In addition to implementing government research security requirements, academic institutions have independently moved to address research security issues.

⁴ See https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/43346_09-2024_assessing-researchsecurity-efforts-in-higher-education-meeting-of-experts-1. Conversations on this topic are ongoing.

⁵ See Appendix A for the agenda of the September 2024 MOE.

⁶ Workshop planning committee biographies are available in Appendix B.

⁷ For the complete workshop agenda, see Appendix C. Speaker biographies are available in Appendix D.

⁸ The meeting series was sponsored by DOD. See https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/45309_09-2025_assessing-research-security-efforts-in-higher-education-meetingof-experts-2 for information on the second MOE.

Christine H. Fox (Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory [APL]), workshop planning committee chair, opened the workshop by identifying several themes related to U.S. research and research security. She noted that fundamental research (see Box 1-1) is a critical component of U.S. scientific and technical leadership and essential to both national security and economic security.

Fox said that there is general agreement that there are threats to the U.S. research enterprise, threats that pose a significant challenge, not only to research institutions, but to our national and economic security. The People’s Republic of China (PRC), for instance, preferentially directs fundamental research toward military needs, making collaboration a national security concern. Other nations also seek to misappropriate R&D with the aim of challenging U.S. economic security.

Fox suggested that there is broad agreement that openness, transparency, and collaboration are fundamentally important to scientific discovery—and should be protected. Although research security is necessary to protect the U.S. research ecosystem from threats, research security efforts must preserve intellectual freedom and openness. This is a significant challenge with inherent contradictions, Fox said. Despite these contradictions, everyone recognizes that recipients of federal funding have a responsibility to protect U.S. research. There are, however, cultural barriers in the research community to security initiatives.

Fox said that many have suggested that research security initiatives are already causing a decline in the number of international students at our universities and that research security policies impose costs on research institutions, weighing heaviest on smaller universities.

How large are research security challenges?, Fox asked. “How significant is the threat? . . . And are any of these research security initiatives making a difference?”

Fox suggested that there is consensus about the need to assess the results of our current research security efforts in order to better understand what is being accomplished, identify areas for improvement, and mitigate potential harm that research security initiatives may be causing to the research environment. There is also a need to assess what is being achieved through these initiatives so as to navigate the inherent contradictions about the goals of research security efforts. To do this, measures of effectiveness and data are needed. Measures of effectiveness—and the data needed to support them—are the focus of the workshop, Fox said.

Fox emphasized that research conducted in the United States has led to important innovations. The United States, she said, is recognized globally as the world’s leader in science and research, discovery, and innovation. Those accomplishments come out of a culture that values intellectual freedom and collaboration—but our research is not secure. Both the research and our research culture must be protected and defended, and we need the ability to assess our efforts in this regard, Fox said.