The Cover
Research diplomacy
The role of higher education in a new geopolitical era.
By Julie Hoeflinger
Anti-microbial resistance, climate change, an ever-growing population – we’re facing increasingly global challenges that in turn require international cooperation. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated more than ever the necessity of global scientific collaboration, calling for dialogue between researchers and policymakers at a level not seen before. Higher education and research institutions hold a responsibility to help address these largescale issues, yet rapid globalisation, an increasingly unstable geopolitical arena and a rise in research security risks are becoming larger barriers in doing so.
An evolving global research framework is needed to successfully tackle these often time-sensitive hurdles. Universities, which are a primary actor in scientific research, also have a growing secondary role: decreasing tension between nations. Given this effect, some scholars are pushing for maintaining an open global science system, while others want to take a more restrictive route on international scientific collaborations, citing concerns over research integrity and national security.
What is science diplomacy?
While science diplomacy has been around for centuries, it’s only recently been well defined as it became more relevant than ever. The concept came into clear focus in 2010, when the UK’s Royal Society and American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) published a joint document titled, “New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy,” and the term has since gained mass traction. Science diplomacy is the process by which researchers and research institutions across the globe work together on research and technology endeavours, whether that’s through individual projects or the signing of treaties such as the Paris Agreement.
Science diplomacy involves interactions between multiple sectors, including nonprofit organisations, governments and the science community. Those that support science diplomacy maintain science is an international enterprise with shared goals and values. However, science and innovation have long been one of the primary ways in which nations compete and gain power. Not only that, but developing new technology is also crucial in protecting national security. This can, of course, create strain between countries.
Geopolitical tensions
There are currently a number of factors contributing to destabilising geopolitics worldwide, which inevitably impacts global scientific partnerships. The 2024 World Bank reported that among these are war and conflict and polarised politics. Conflicts including those in Ukraine and the Middle East have had far-reaching consequences and led some governments to be hesitant of a more internationalised research framework.
“Our 2010 [science diplomacy] report was framed in an era of increasing scientific cooperation,” wrote Dr Emma Hennessey, former Deputy Chief Science Adviser and former Deputy Head of the Global Economic Issues department at the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in an article for the Royal Society of Biology. “Since then, government leaders in major scientific nations have grown more concerned with research security and the potential vulnerability of an open global science system. Nations that once embraced broad scientific collaboration are now skewing toward distrust and competition.” That distrust is further heightened by growing threats of authoritarianism.
In the US, there is rising hostility and competition with countries like China, resulting in calls to reel back some international research collaborations. One element being considered is the implementation of restrictions on who US scientists can partner with internationally and what research can be openly published, which would vastly contradict the past four decades of science diplomacy in the states.
Areas of research called into debate include emerging technologies that could be involved in national security threats, such as artificial intelligence and synthetic biology, explains Dr E. William Colglazier, the Editor in Chief of Science & Diplomacy, in an article he wrote last year. “Security concerns have left researchers unclear of what the rules are and facing increased roadblocks for international cooperation even in basic research,” Dr Colglazier states. He also cites ethical lapses by scientists, patent infringement, inappropriate foreign talent programs, technology theft, and espionage as reasons for the US wanting to place restrictions on international scientific collaboration.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine escalated research security concerns, with a number of US stakeholders suggesting that some global partnerships should be reevaluated in light of growing national defence concerns. In the UK and US, several were placed on research and technology activities. In fact, UK state funding for projects with partners in Russia were completely suspended.
One of the primary concerns for the UK now is navigating scientific partnerships in a post-Brexit world. Withdrawing from collaborations can damage relationships and trust, which is something that the UK’s research and development sector has to re-navigate.
Despite these challenges, the need for global research efforts to address global issues remains, and an appropriate framework is needed to balance the benefits of open collaboration while also protecting research integrity and national security.
The role of higher education and knowledge diplomacy
Knowledge diplomacy is a concept that was introduced by Jane Knight, professor at the University of Toronto and the Ontario Institute for Studies in Higher Education, in a paper presented at the British Council’s Going Global conference in 2019. Similar to science diplomacy, knowledge diplomacy covers a slightly broader spectrum, including a cultural context. Knight defines knowledge diplomacy as “the process of building and strengthening relations between and among countries through international higher education, research and innovation”.
Higher education plays a central function in knowledge diplomacy, as science has proven to have a secondary effect of improving relationships between countries. Some experts argue that the success of knowledge diplomacy is due to universities’ perceived neutrality. While higher education’s ability to strengthen relationships between nations isn’t new, Knight argues that “using a knowledge-diplomacy framework for analysis, rather than soft power or the traditional lens of cultural and science diplomacy, is a new approach”.
This was the topic of discussion at a three-day seminar held earlier this past June hosted by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the University of Nottingham titled, ‘Knowledge diplomacy – the role of international higher education in a new geopolitical era.’
According to Knight, there are three key factors for successful knowledge diplomacy: co-operation, reciprocity, and mutual benefit. Knight describes the wide range of actors from different countries and different sectors required to work together to tackle urgent global challenges. These actors include various state and non-state IHERI institutions, including but not limited to think tanks, professional associations, private sector companies and non-governmental organisations.
Under this framework, the approach is not one of national self-interest, competition, and ‘winner-takes-all’ but rather one prioritising negotiation and mutual benefits. While higher education has at times been employed to gain a competitive edge in the form of soft power, it is not traditionally viewed as a game of winners and losers, Knight points out. Instead, it is a way to exchange information for the benefit of everyone.
“Better global research collaboration is better for everybody”
Dr Jane Gatewood, Vice Provost for Global Engagement at the University of Rochester, discusses their approach to global scientific collaboration. Located in New York state, the University of Rochester is an active member of the Worldwide Universities Network, which is an international consortium of 24 universities from six continents that form partnerships on research and education addressing major global issues.
In terms of competition, Dr Gatewood explains that researchers and universities are more focussed on the question, How can I be competitive for this grant or award? “A lot of that is thinking about what facilities and researchers do we have, and then what other institutions around the country or the world bring other complementary strengths that would make the application or award most successful.” Rather than restricting partnerships, Dr Gatewood argues for pursuing global collaborations while also ensuring that they’re constantly scanning the horizon for executive orders or policy changes limiting these interactions.
For instance, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, several US states, including New York, mandated executive orders stopping engagement with partners in Russia. “We had to put all of our relationships in Russia on pause,” explains Dr Gatewood. While it’s important for governments to take steps of caution, implementing more and more sanctions may not be the best response moving forward.
Despite growing security concerns, Dr Gatewood maintains the importance of a global scientific collaborations. “I think academic research is really about finding answers and solutions to the world's thorniest problems. And the world's thorniest problems are often areas that require team approaches,” she emphasises. “Better global research collaboration is better for everybody.”
Similarly, rather than being overly cautious, Dr Colglazier calls for more in-person dialogue between scientists and government officials to help find the balance between research openness and research security. Instead of placing hasty sanctions on international research collaborations, potential restrictions should be decided through ongoing discussions between scientific experts, government funders and security professionals. Dr Colglazier defends a global research system, arguing, “I see no need to fundamentally change a strategy that has benefited our country so greatly”.
How is the UK navigating global scientific cooperation?
After leaving the European Union, science and innovation have become critical to preserving UK’s links to it. So critical that The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee published a statement saying that rebuilding global scientific relationships post-Brexit, and in the face of funding cuts, was ‘urgent.’
However, the UK is still committed to international research efforts. One of these major efforts is tackling antimicrobial resistance, which the UK has been a major leader in. More generally, UK higher education attracts hundreds of thousands of international students every year, and the Global Talent visa brings in international researchers and teaching staff that further encourage global scientific collaboration. The UK also has organisations like the UK Research & Innovation (UKRI) that further removes barriers, making it easier for scientists and research organisations from across the globe to work together.
To address research security, (UKRI), Universities UK and the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure developed an outline that gives advice on how to manage risk and find trustworthy international collaborators. And, following the conflict in Ukraine, the UK government delivered a funding programme among other support for Ukraine’s science and technology sector. Another example of successful science diplomacy in the UK is the creation of a Climate Diplomacy Fund that supports activities surrounding the 2021 UN climate change conference goals. The UK is also a member of the EU’s ‘Stick to Science’ campaign, which pushes for “open and barrier-free collaboration among Europe’s research and innovation actors, who all share the same values”.
Inevitably, there are challenges to knowledge diplomacy and an open global science system. Utilising knowledge diplomacy as a guise to conceal an agenda of self-interest while sacrificing global interest is a lingering concern. Some worry whether this framework can be sustained in the face of rising nationalism and polarised politics, which that result in distrust. “Knowledge diplomacy is not a silver bullet,” Knight stressed in her paper. While this framework isn’t a perfect solution, there are ways to mitigate security risks while preserving the international collaboration required to solve humanity’s current threats, especially through ongoing, intersectional dialogue between the scientific community, multiple levels of government, and multiple other sectors across the globe.