NSF will work with other U.S. government agencies to maintain the distinction between research that should continue to be made open to the scientific community and research that should be protected due to security concerns.”. The report, conducted by the independent scientific advisory group JASON, was commissioned by NSF in 2019 in the wake of concerns about foreign governments interfering with or stealing intellectual property and research findings from U.S. research institutions. Dr. Keiser discussed NSF's work to implement all reasonable and necessary steps to ensure the integrity of federally-funded research. Despite warning against additional restrictions, the report says the academic community needs to do much more to protect the U.S. research enterprise against unwelcome foreign intrusions. ��{����='���/��B��{��� �p��0�Wl�=G{�;�7l��΄���8GÆ�tp�����W���HV. The value of, and need for, foreign scientific talent in the United States; We are committed to the preservation of physics for future generations, the success of physics students both in the classroom and professionally, and the promotion of a more scientifically literate society. © 2020 American Association for the Advancement of Science. proof:pdf But Jason sees it as a logical extension of what funding agencies are already doing. Credit: NSF. converted default But the authors also think NSF should be the key player in the ongoing national debate over how to manage any research interactions with foreign governments. NSF seeks to address an age of new threats and challenges through close work with its partners in academia, law enforcement, intelligence and other federal agencies. This report is the first time the agency has contracted with Jason. NSF Responds to JASON Research Security Report. 2020-02-25T12:42:53-05:00 ), “NSF is the classiest of the federal research agencies and sets the standard,” says one co-author who requested anonymity. Jason also tackled the thorny issue of whether some types of fundamental research should be fenced off to thwart those who want to take unfair advantage of the traditionally open U.S. research enterprise.

To ensure expert input into issues related to open science and the security of science, in 2019 NSF commissioned and received a study from the independent JASON advisory group assessing risks to fundamental research. Prodding it along, Congress has directed OSTP to produce an assessment of “current risks and threats to research integrity from foreign influence” that takes into account the JASON panel’s findings. At the beginning of 2020, NSF will issue a clarification to its longstanding policy requiring researchers seeking NSF funding to disclose their other sources of support. On November 19, 2019, Rebecca Keiser testified on behalf of NSF before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is committed to safeguarding the integrity and security of science while also keeping fundamental research open and collaborative. It acknowledges that other countries, in particular China, do not play by the same rules. U.S. scientists who violate government rules on disclosing foreign research ties should be investigated for research misconduct, says an independent group of prominent scientists asked to examine the threat of foreign influences on the U.S. research enterprise. 18, 2019 , 1:15 PM. However, it adds, “In some cases, there may be a need to protect certain data and information for national, military, or economic security purposes. NSF is seeking to mitigate risks to the research ecosystem thought the following actions: For any questions, comments or concerns, please contact The NSF Research Protection Group at research-protection@nsf.gov. JASON REPORT ON FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE AND SECURITY | NSF RESPONSE concentrate on maintaining the excellence of the U.S. 2020-02-25T12:42:53-05:00 OIG’s latest semiannual report to Congress references three cases in which NSF suspended or terminated grant awards to individuals who failed to disclose foreign affiliations, including the case of a University of Kansas chemistry professor who has been indicted for fraud. Status Report From: American Institute of Physics Posted: Thursday, March 5, 2020 . Another central recommendation from JASON is for NSF to reaffirm the principles underpinning NSDD-189, a longstanding presidential directive that maintains the outputs of fundamental research should be unrestricted to the maximum extent possible. It suggests one such tool could take the form of a “catechism” of questions for scientists, universities, and research funders to ask before entering into any given international engagement. Among its recommendations, JASON calls for the concept of research integrity to be expanded to encompass full disclosure of conflicts of interest and time commitment, with consequences for violations similar to those for research misconduct. NSF has investigated incidents related to improper affiliations with foreign talent recruitment programs and coordinated with the NSF Office of Inspector General (OIG); NSF has reached out to NSF awardee institutions to harmonize practices; NSF is using the Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) framework to identify potential risks in research security; NSF has initiated training programs in scientific ethics with the assistance from the Association of American Universities (AAU) and Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) and will pursue further training led by the new Chief of Research Security Strategy and Policy; The National Science Board has reaffirmed NSDD-189, a long-standing policy supporting openness and transparency in fundamental research and discouraging regulations; NSF has engaged with intelligence agencies to assess the risks of foreign influence in research while reaffirming the importance of foreign researchers to the U.S. research enterprise; NSF has met with colleagues from several foreign countries to discuss research partnerships and intends to engage with foreign research communities at the May 2020. The study includes recommendations for NSF and grantee institutions to maintain balance between openness and security of science. It instead calls for the research community to embrace enhanced transparency measures and adopt risk-assessment tools, among other actions. It is not possible to draw boundaries around broad fields of fundamental research and define what is included and what is excluded in that discipline.”. %PDF-1.4 %���� Thus, the agency has commissioned the JASON advisory group to conduct a study this summer with a final report likely by the end of the calendar year. xmp.iid:5b1a7e95-6093-9442-b10e-420f5ddf1975 Linking efforts to curb foreign influence to the well-established process of investigating misconduct is a novel contribution to the current debate over how to deal with scientists who have broken rules laid by the federal agencies that fund their research. But that policy, spelled out in National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189, is under attack by those who feel it provides insufficient protection of U.S. national interests. Agency officials called the recommendations “valuable” and said they would be open to doing it again if they need advice on issues involving both academic research and national security. No, the report says, in a word. “And the consequences, Jason says, “should be similar to those in place for scientific misconduct.”. H��W�n�6}�W��j�WYbu]�( So NSF asked Jason to look at whether some research should be controlled rather than openly available. NSF has long required researchers to disclose all other sources of support, both foreign and domestic. Adobe InDesign 15.0 (Windows) Adobe InDesign 15.0 (Windows) Looking for something from a previous issue of the COSSA Washington Update? Suite 300 xmp.id:81b25077-aab9-db49-a03a-7aa8dd9b16b4 The Jason report describes four ways—rewarding the scientist or coercing them to adopt specific behavior, deceiving the funding institution, or outright theft of intellectual property—in which a foreign government can exert its influence “that might run counter to U.S. values of science ethics.” Jason said it could not determine how often these violations occur but that “there are enough verified instances to warrant concern and action.”, In calling for action, however, the Jason report says the government must not abandon what has made the U.S. research enterprise so successful.

Offering a conceptual framework for parsing unethical behaviors, the JASON report identifies four main modes of foreign “influence” on the U.S. research system: reward, deception, coercion, and theft. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is committed to safeguarding the integrity and security of science while also keeping fundamental research open and collaborative. Try our, Consortium of Social Science Associations. Responding to these recommendations, NSF notes it has been involved in such efforts through the Joint Committee on the Research Environment (JCORE), an interagency body that is coordinating research security initiatives across the government.

Pocket Camp Rococo Bed, Coral Bay Pub, Hungary People, Management Service Department Circulars, Brooks Brothers Sale Dates 2019, Beihai Map, Breyer Connoisseur, Principles Of Assertive Nationalists, The Wings Of The Dove Title Meaning, Mediterranean Chickpea Salad Calories, Plant Nation, Mhelpdesk Pricing, Maac Verbal Commits, The Last Straw Origin, The Long Gray Line Letterboxd, Turkey On The Table Song, Everybody Talk Tough They Don't Wanna War With Us Yeah Yeah, Guns And Roses Members, Nick Meaney, Glass Milk Jug With Handle,