A narrow concept of security overlooks potential and real attacks faced by SSH. And wrongly designed security policies can endanger academic freedom and the integrity and success of research. I argue for a new perspective on knowledge security, sensitive to SSH, that can inspire other fields.  

Europe should consider a charter for free and secure SSH research. This could provide the basis for a robust framework to ensure knowledge security, guaranteeing the freedom and positive societal impact of research across all disciplines.

From openness to security – a shift in European research policy

Ten years ago, Commissioner Moedas summarised his vision as: Open Innovation, Open Science and Openness to the World. These times feel long gone. The Commission’s 2025 strategic foresight report describes security as “a key vector for all EU policies”.   President von der Leyen's mission letter to Commissioner Zaharieva, instructs her “to work to strengthen our research security”:  a profound policy shift that can affect the cultural foundations of research in Europe.

Why knowledge security matters for SSH researchers

According to the 2024 EU Council recommendations, knowledge security refers to protection against unauthorised knowledge transfer, foreign interference, and research that violates fundamental values. 

SSH researchers often encounter attempts to distort, exploit and suppress their work, including travel bans, withdrawal of funding, and exclusion from collaborations. Researchers and their families may even face threats to their freedom or personal and physical well-being. Scholars at Risk recently published the Free To Think report on attacks on Higher Education, which includes a significant proportion of SSH-related incidents. The Network of Concerned Historians tracks worrying trends in the censorship of history and the persecution of historians, archivists, and archaeologists worldwide.

This is because SSH research often has a direct impact on politics. A leaked list of 197 “risky terms” in US NSF and NIH grant reviews – including “polarisation” or “trauma” – showed entire fields under threat. In Europe, too, we saw the expulsion of the Central European University as politically undesirable. There is a worrying surge of transnational repression  threatening research even in Europe. At stake are fundamental values: academic freedom and human dignity – principles that are universal, non-negotiable and central to the European project. 

The double-edged sword of SSH knowledge

Besides direct attempts to suppress research and researchers, the European Council text also considers the misuse of knowledge a security risk. This is particularly relevant in the SSH. Understanding an “opponent’s” culture can promote dialogue – or can be weaponised. Researching village dynamics can inform public health campaigns or identify military targets. Interpreting historical narratives can foster reconciliation – or justify war. None of this is new: anthropology evolved to serve the needs of colonial powers, theology justified the power of the church, and historiography reinforced the nation-state.

This does not mean that SSH have failed ethically; the exploitation of their work by external actors can happen without their direct involvement or consent. Facing political manipulation, commercial capture, or transnational repression as a systemic problem is an old challenge for SSH. However, its response needs to be adapted to new technological, societal, and geopolitical dynamics.

Learning from the Past: Developing ethical boundaries

The 20th century saw an increased awareness of this grimmer side of research. The Project Camelot scandal in the mid-1960s, of anthropologists involved in counterinsurgency efforts, led the American Anthropological Association to establish guidelines prohibiting the military use of their research. Other fields, such as psychology or sociology, followed with their own codes, showing an increased sense of self-responsibility. Such guidelines cannot prevent all misuse – especially as technologies evolve and research becomes increasingly interdisciplinary.   

STEM disciplines have long faced this dilemma. Abuses in fields like nuclear research or biosecurity can pose existential threats to humanity and have led to robust frameworks to prevent abuse, while ensuring that the research endeavours are not needlessly hampered by the security environment. The considerations are relatively new in the SSH and offer new opportunities for interdisciplinary cooperation – exchanging experiences and perspectives from STEM and SSH – and working together to, more effectively and holistically, address the knowledge security challenges.

Across Europe, leading academic and university organisations have repeatedly stressed that research security must not come at the expense of academic freedom or institutional autonomy. Building on these shared principles, Europe should now take the next step: a Charter for free and secure SSH research.

Towards a European Charter for free and secure SSH research

External pressures and misuse pose threats to both the security and value of research.  Safeguards are needed but must not damage the very research they aim to protect. For historians, security means access to archives – even where these contradict dominant narratives. For political scientists, it means talking to colleagues across borders – particularly between nations in conflict. For researchers investigating political and social dynamics, it means having access to social media platforms and other digital channels. Poorly designed knowledge security policies that hinder mobility and restrict free access to relevant resources become a security risk themselves.

With knowledge security at the heart of European research policies, common principles and mechanisms should protect the roles and value of SSH. A first step could be the development of a European charter on SSH and knowledge security. Building such a Charter could bring stakeholders together around a shared approach. Developed through a deliberative process, it could include the following:

1. Openness as the foundation of knowledge itself

Cross-border exchange and thematic openness are at the heart of scholarship and must not be treated primarily as risk factors. All security-related measures – from visa policies to archival access – must be evaluated for their impact on research, with openness as a default. Any exceptions must be transparent and justified. Measures to strengthen research security must be designed so that they respect and uphold academic freedom and institutional autonomy.

2. Effective protection mechanisms

Scholars in sensitive areas need more than moral support. A European emergency mechanism could provide concrete and swift assistance: legal advice, safe mobility, psychological support, and the ability to continue research under threat. It could involve member states, the European Commission, funders, universities, and dedicated organisations already in place, such as Scholars at Risk and their partner networks.

Protection could include training modules to help researchers detect manipulation and subtle pressures, ombuds offices to advise in “red flag” cases, and legal safeguards protecting sources.

3. Clear limits against misuse

Using SSH for repression, disinformation, or surveillance is incompatible with academic integrity. The charter should encourage ethics committees, institutions, and funders to include this dimension in their risk assessments. Further safeguards should include legal protections e.g., against surveillance or censorship, for academic freedom, and institutional autonomy. Institutional funding mechanisms must consider the additional investment required.

4. Forward-looking governance and policymaking

Knowledge security policies can affect SSH, even if they are not explicitly targeted at it. SSH researchers and their representatives must be involved in the development of knowledge security policies across the board, including new political and technological developments, such as data access for AI. Current EU efforts, such as the European AI office, require a strong involvement of SSH researchers.  

5. Research for peace and security

With its strong focus on culture and society, SSH are crucial for building trust and peace. To fully exploit the potential of SSH, Europe needs to invest in it. Currently, funding for peace-related research – such as in the context of development assistance or for dedicated institutes – is declining. To make the world and Europe more secure, this must be reversed, and future funding, including the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), must strengthen peace-related research.

6. A European observatory

To ensure these principles are not empty words and to coordinate efforts, an independent body should be established to monitor how security measures affect SSH and other research areas. Such an observatory could collect cases, issue early warnings, and provide advice to policymakers, universities, funders and other institutions. It could also serve as a central knowledge hub, providing data on issues such as ethical risk assessment and foreign influence.

A European Charter could enhance knowledge security, promote peace and dialogue, and safeguard the quality and value of SSH.

By adopting such a Charter, Europe would not only strengthen its security but also reaffirm its commitment to democracy, freedom and the values that must serve as its foundation. 

Further reading and background information:

About the author

Dr Alexander Hasgall is an independent expert in international research policy and higher education. He also acts as Senior Adviser to the European Alliance for Social Sciences and Humanities (EASSH). Previously, he was Head of the EUA Council for Doctoral Education and led the International Funding Policy Unit at the Swiss National Science Foundation. He holds a doctorate in Latin American History from the University of Zurich.