Securing equity: why research security must be built on trust and collaboration

Introduction: A balancing act

Research security has become a central feature of global research governance. Yet, as these agendas develop, they can clash with other foundational principles of research. Equitable partnerships is one point of tension that’s received less focus. As a result, well-intentioned security measures can inadvertently undermine the very values that make research collaborative, inclusive, and impactful.

The rise of research security: A growing field

Globally, governments and institutions are responding to an evolving threat landscape. Dual-use technologies, geopolitical tensions, and intellectual property theft have prompted a wave of policy responses. The recent OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2025 found a 10-fold increase in research security policies since 2018.

As highlighted in the Stronger Cooperation, Safer Collaboration report, research managers are increasingly concerned about the unintended consequences of security protocols. There is growing discomfort with approaches that potentially lead to discrimination, racial profiling, and the erosion of academic freedom.

Equitable partnerships: A policy gap

Eva Kagiri-Kalanzi, a co-author of the Essence on Health and UKCDR’s Four Approaches to Supporting Equitable Research Partnerships, argues that policy “frameworks often overlook the realities of Low and Middle Income (LMIC) institutions.” She notes that “LMICs are already viewed as high-risk” by default.

The publication highlights how principles like co-creation, mutual accountability, and capacity strengthening are essential to building trust. Yet, there is work to do in making these principles standard practice. Policies such as trusted research and equitable partnerships are rarely considered together.

Value is not universal: What we protect depends on who we are

A critical, often overlooked dimension of research security is that value is not universal. What one country or institution deems essential to protect may be of lesser concern elsewhere. For example, some nations prioritise safeguarding advanced digital technologies, while others focus on critical minerals. These priorities are shaped by national interests, economic strategies, and cultural values.

This diversity in what is valued directly influences how countries design their research security regimes. Export control frameworks, for instance, may be tightly focused on technologies with military applications in some countries, while others extend protections to a broader range of assets, including data, critical minerals, or traditional knowledge. It is important to build understanding around multiple perspectives, so we do not disproportionately increase the friction in global collaboration.

Innovation policy: protecting knowledge flows alongside preventing knowledge leaks

The Trusted Research and Innovation report by the Innovation and Research Caucus (IRC) provides compelling evidence of how well-intentioned innovation and security policies can dampen knowledge flows through fragmented or overly rigid security frameworks. Without input from diverse research communities, they may reinforce exclusion and create gaps in risk management.

For LMIC institutions, this can mean being treated as passive recipients of risk rather than active contributors to solutions. Without recognising the diversity of the research ecosystem, innovation policy risks becoming a blunt instrument, misaligned with the realities of global collaboration.

Equity and security: Connecting the dots

Earlier this year, Science for Africa Foundation held a workshop in Zimbabwe with participants from across Africa. I collaborated with Eva Kagiri-Kalanzi who led on equitable partnerships and Allen Mukhwana who led on Good Research Management Practice Standards which incorporate research security requirements. Participants shared experiences of power imbalances and systemic inequities in global research partnerships.

By considering research security alongside equitable partnership requirements for LMIC partners and local frameworks, they were able to contextualise the agenda for their own environments.

When LMIC institutions are excluded from policy development or treated as passive recipients of risk, they are less able to build the internal capacity needed to actively manage security threats. Conversely, when partnerships are built on mutual respect, transparency, and shared governance, institutions are better positioned to protect their research and respond to emerging risks.

Protecting what we value: Locally and proportionately

Recognising that value is context-dependent, the most effective research security responses are localised and proportionate. Rather than adopting broad based policies, institutions should be supported to assess risk based on context. Support through training and practical tools helps ensure risk assessment is culturally and contextually appropriate.

Towards safer, fairer collaboration

The path to secure and equitable research is neither straightforward nor quick. Achieving meaningful and lasting change demands sustained investment of time, resources and commitment at every level, from individuals to institutions to partners and funders. Equity must not be treated as an afterthought or a secondary concern; rather, it should be considered on equal footing with other tensions inherent in research security, such as academic freedom, open science, and national interests.

Only by recognising and addressing these tensions can we ensure that security policies and interventions strike a balance that preserves our values as well as protecting what we value. From policy drafting to implementation, training and capacity-building to project governance, there is much we can do to ensure that new policies do not inadvertently undermine equity.

This article was originally published in ARMA Insights.