Think tank decries science friction between countries, demands global cooperation

More countries are prioritizing national security over scientific discovery

Why can't we all just get along... for the good of science? New research suggests countries prioritizing national security over the greater good are hindering global research and economic development.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2025 report warns that policies designed to protect sensitive research and prevent foreign interference are limiting humanity's ability to address shared challenges – from climate goals to health innovation.

"The challenge is to strike the right balance between security, openness, and innovation," said OECD Secretary-General Mathias Cormann. He conceded that too little security can expose sensitive research, while too much can stifle innovation and positive collaboration.

"Governments need to design measures that are proportional to the risks, well-targeted, and which enable mutually beneficial collaboration if they are to protect national interests without undermining research quality."

Transformative change requires "ambitious" levels of investment over a long period, from exploratory fundamental research to the rollout and diffusion of tested technologies, the report says.

R&D expenditure has grown in the last two decades, yet investment patterns indicate changing priorities across the 38 OECD member states (both developed and emerging economies).

Spend targeting health-related objectives have declined steadily between 2020 and 2024 (after peaking due to COVID-19), while R&D support for energy and defense increased sharply over the same period by 51 percent and 17 percent respectively.

Growing geopolitical tensions and competition in emerging critical technologies are reshaping international cooperation, the OECD notes, with recent science and technology innovation policies and strategies shifting to reflect security concerns.

Governments increasingly steer funding toward national and economic security, including dual-use initiatives linking civilian and defense research. Many are restricting knowledge sharing and strengthening information security.

These policies imply some reconfiguration of international research relations, the report says, such as pooling resources with like-minded nations while excluding or discouraging collaboration with countries that are not considered safe partners for cooperation.

The trend toward international collaboration has stalled and may be breaking down, largely due to US-China tensions. The report finds that China's expanding research system enables more domestic collaboration among top groups, reducing the need for international partnerships. But the primary driver is a sharp drop in US-China cooperation.

This matters because several countries depend heavily on international talent. Australia, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the UK draw at least 40 percent of their doctoral graduates from abroad – many from China. Security restrictions on international mobility could force these nations to seek talent elsewhere.

The OECD warns that overzealous restrictions could damage research quality and economic competitiveness while undermining efforts to tackle global challenges. As governments target critical technologies like AI and quantum computing, they risk creating what experts predict will be costly: two parallel ecosystems, one aligned with Washington, the other with Beijing.

The solution, according to the OECD, is balanced security policies that weigh restrictions against the benefits of open science, involve diverse stakeholders including scientists and companies, and remain proportional to actual risks.

However, evidence points to a growing rift between the US and China that looks set to split the globe into two parallel ecosystems.

The Trump administration has no qualms in leaning on other nations and using sanctions including tariffs, even against allies, if they don't toe the President's line. The result is likely to be costly with slower progress on challenges that affect everyone. ®