Western science funders’ response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

Abstract

In the wake of economic sanctions, Western funding agencies are increasingly halting scientific collaboration with Russia.

The response from Northern America, Europe, and Japan to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been overwhelmingly swift and coordinated to impose drastic economic sanctions against Russian individuals, banks, and the Russian government. Less coordinated though has been the response from major public and private funding agencies for research. Germany and the UK have adopted the harshest measures so far while other countries and private agencies still consider their options. These differences reflect varying degrees of involvement in Russian science and the nature of projects concerned, along with a desire to punish the regime while keeping communication lines open with Russian scientists. There are also international obligations to shared projects which require nuanced responses to maintain funding in specific cases.

The reluctance to cut funds in some quarters has to be seen in the context of earlier engagement with Russian scientists…

The reluctance to cut funds in some quarters has to be seen in the context of earlier engagement with Russian scientists, not just in the spirit of global collaboration but also specifically to harness science as a vehicle for harmonizing relations with Russia and reducing international tensions. Even as President Putin was being accused of tacit involvement in poisoning political opponents and waging war in Georgia before the later annexation of Crimea, new collaborations were sprouting across the realm of science.

The spirit of collaboration between Russia and the “West” was still high at the 2013 World Health Assembly in Geneva, which staged the third meeting of the USA‐Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission's Health Working Group and discussions over how researchers from the two countries could build deeper relationships. There was broad agreement for instance for more synergy between the United States and Russia over research on rare diseases. The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) was promoting and funding a scheme for Visiting Fellows from Russia under that collaboration, via a web page which has now been deleted. It is not clear if the funds are still available as the NIH declined to comment on the current situation, as has the US National Science Foundation (NSF).

Germany cutting ties with Russian research

Partly as a result of such initiatives and collaborations, Russian science continued its long‐standing process of recovery from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, when tens of thousands of the country’s scientists moved abroad or abandoned their careers. Indeed, scientific output in Russia had been rising steeply right up to the invasion of Ukraine, jumping by almost 10% between 2019 and 2020 alone, according to the Nature index database (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586‐022‐00761‐9). This tracks affiliations in research articles in 82 top journals and determines collaboration by a so‐called aggregate Share count. Although an imperfect measure, it gives a good idea of relative contributions and their change from year to year.

… the USA and Germany have been by some distance Russia’s major collaborators, each with Share counts of almost exactly 250 for 2021.

By that measure, the United States and Germany have been by some distance Russia’s major collaborators, each with Share counts of almost exactly 250 for 2021. China ranked third on 140, while France and the UK were joint fourth at about 120. The United States and Germany therefore face particular challenges to disentangle their research programs and sanction Russian science without jeopardizing some of their own programs. Yet, Germany was the first to react, starting with a statement on 25^th February by its Alliance of Science Organizations in Germany, a union of the country’s top research institutions, expressing full solidarity with Ukraine and announcing discussions over what specific steps it would take. While commenting that decisions were eventually down to member institutions, it recommended to freeze academic cooperation with state institutions and business enterprises in Russia with immediate effect until further notice and that German research funds no longer benefit Russia, with cessation of joint academic events.

Just 5 days later on March 2^nd, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Germany’s largest research funder, cancelled all current academic projects being conducted in collaboration with partners in Russia and stated that no funding proposals for new collaborative projects would be accepted until further notice. It means that funding for the Russian contribution to joint projects would be ceased, even though the German component was maintained. The DFG conceded that this would disrupt some programs, but has attempted to mitigate the impact by reaching out to Russian scientists involved and inviting them to continue their work on German soil if they came over. At the same time, the DFG has also offered to assist Ukrainian scientists whose work has been disrupted under an existing refugee scheme.

“Simultaneously to the taken measures, DFG has expanded its helping initiative for refugee researchers, that has been established in 2015, now offering support for researchers from Ukraine and from Russia as well, who are forced to leave their countries, in order to give them a short‐term integration into the German academic system. This will in fact not only involve support for those scientists that were involved in funded projects, but for others as well”, said a DFG spokesperson. The spokesperson added that the measures are focused on the institutional level and on German‐Russian collaborations that are co‐funded by state funding organizations in Russia, namely the Russian Science Foundation (RSF) and Russian Foundation for Basic Research organizations (RFBR).

Uncertainty over large collaborations

The bulk of foreign research money in Russia went to projects under the banners of natural and engineering sciences, but still 25% was allocated to projects in the life sciences or humanities. According to the DFG, 284 institutional co‐funded projects from 2019 onwards were funded with a total of €36.3 million. Of these, 174 projects or 51% were in the natural sciences with €18.6 million support, 55 or 24% in engineering sciences for €8.8 million, 41 or 19% in biomedical or live sciences at €6.9 million, and 14 or 5% in the humanities and social sciences at €2.0 million. “These funding amounts are the total approvals submitted for those collaborations within bilateral calls with RSF and RFBR, and it is not funding that flows into Russia and the Russian teams”, the spokesperson stressed.

There is still uncertainty over the fate of some large collaborations between German and Russian teams. These tend not be in the life sciences but do underline some of the tensions and difficulties involved in imposing sanctions without contravening international agreements or impacting important research. Indeed, Germany was in a difficult position over two major research facilities that have significant Russian involvement: European XFEL, the world’s largest X‐ray laser in Hamburg, and the Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research (FAIR), currently being constructed in Darmstadt. The Germany’s Federal Ministry of Education and Research issued a statement on Russian sanctions on March 24^th that it would “continue to honour all its obligations under international law”, over these two facilities. “In view of Russia’s aggression, we will agree the further implementation of the FAIR and XFEL conventions with our international partners and in consideration of the legal framework conditions.”

… Germany was in a difficult position over two major research facilities that have significant Russian involvement…

For its part, FAIR had already suspended all bilateral projects with researchers from Russian institutions. The difficulty is over multilateral projects involving Russia and other countries, where FAIR stated it would, “coordinate with the other partners regarding further implementation of the international agreements”. The European XFEL issued a similar statement earlier in March to the effect that future relationships with researchers and institutions in Russia would be decided by its governing council.

The UK’s policy towards research collaboration

The UK was slightly slower off the mark than Germany, but, on March 14^th, its main academic science funder, the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), acted to turn off the taps. UKRI froze grant payments involving scientists in Russia, amounting to 50 projects at UK universities worth several tens of million pounds, although the total is unspecified. This was followed later in the month by more detailed proposals about the projects concerned, noting that for security of UK citizens involved no details could be given. But the UKRI underlined those actions would be taken to ensure that projects would be stabilized and continue as far as possible through new arrangements, with staff affected receiving full support.

UKRI froze grant payments involving scientists in Russia, amounting to 50 projects at UK universities worth several tens of million pounds…

This was echoed by some of the individual academic institutions. The University of Warwick had already reviewed its links with Russian universities “with a view to terminating contracts where possible”. Warwick had been scaling back its relationships with Russian institutions for some years already, according to its vice‐chancellor Stuart Croft, but that was not the case for all universities in the UK’s elite Russell Group.

The UK government then followed up on March 27^th when George Freeman, Minister for Science, Research & Innovation, announced that all payments for projects delivered through UK public research funds with a Russian dimension had been paused. “I have commissioned an assessment, on top of the existing and strong due diligence processes of UK public research funders, to isolate and freeze activities which benefit the Russian regime”, Freeman stated. “We will not fund any new collaborative projects with Russia through our research and innovation organisations. We have suspended existing government to government dialogue through our science and innovation network team in Russia including their collaborative science projects”.

A three‐step response from the EU

At the EU level, the European Research Council (ERC) has been the principal funder of science within member states and beyond since its formation in 2007. Mariya Gabriel, the European Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture, Education and Youth, was quick to frame a basic three‐step response on March 3^rd, starting with disengagement from further cooperative projects involving Russian entities. “I have therefore decided to suspend the preparations of grant agreement for four projects under Horizon Europe programme that involve five Russian research organisations”, Gabriel wrote (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/STATEMENT_22_1528). “Signing of any new contracts will be put on hold until further notice”. The second step was to suspend payments to Russian entities under existing contracts.

The third step was in a different vein: to promise that Ukrainian entities in the Horizon funding scheme would be able as far as possible to continue their participation. This step was reiterated by the ERC directly with an appeal to its grantees to provide temporary employment to refugee researchers and support staff, such as technicians and lab managers, from Ukraine. The ERC contacted all its 5,600 current grantees with a promise to compile and publish the data gained on its website to help incoming Ukrainian scientists find appropriate positions. Although no new money was put on the table immediately for this cause, the ERC pointed out that it had already prepared a proposal earlier in 2022 for a special provision in its Work Programme 2023 to help researchers seeking asylum more broadly. The aim was to facilitate grant applications from refugee researchers from war zones around the world.

Supporting Ukrainian scientists and students

Not all major funding agencies in the west have responded with such urgency. France’s CNRS (Le Centre national de la recherche scientifique) has been reluctant to take quick action over the 65 collaborations with Russia as of February 2022. The CNRS noted that there were about 2000 co‐publications per year in peer‐reviewed journals between CNRS teams and Russian teams. Although the CNRS does not fund Russian research directly, it has provided grants for exchanges as well as via salaries of participants in joint work.

While the CNRS suspended all new scientific collaboration with Russia and cancelled forthcoming events on March 2^nd, it confirmed that Russian researchers currently working in French laboratories could continue their activity. This was beyond merely welcoming Russian scientists in exile, because the arrangements had already been made before the invasion of Ukraine. The CNRS declined to say what further actions might be taken or what the impact would be on existing collaborative programs.

The CNRS is though playing a forward role in supporting refugee scientists through the national French PAUSE program, set up in 2017 to support scientists in exile. “The CNRS will provide any form of aid and support to Ukrainian researchers and is prepared to welcome those who so wish”, said a CNRS spokesperson. “Our organisation has joined the scheme set up as part of the PAUSE programme, which has launched an urgent call for help for Ukrainian researchers who are in danger, thanks to an emergency fund allocated by the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation”. The UK too has stepped up its help for Ukrainian scientists: Freeman, announced on March 27^th a £3 million (€3.6 million) package to support researchers at risk in the country.

The CNRS is though playing a forward role in supporting refugee scientists through the national French PAUSE program, set up in 2017 to support scientists in exile.

Offers of help for displaced Ukrainian scientists have also come from various institutions and funders in the United States. The US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, a group of private, non‐profit institutions, issued an open letter to the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine on March 2^nd, albeit at that stage without any concrete measures. However, some academic institutions were quick to rally, with Andrew Kern, a population geneticist at the University of Oregon, inviting Ukrainian geneticists to contact him on Twitter as early as February 24^th, the first day of the Russian invasion, because his research group wanted to provide support. A few tweets later, Kern put together a Google Doc with a list of laboratories in the United States willing to support displaced Ukrainian scientists.

Evidence of sanctions biting accumulated during March as a result of export controls which deprived labs of computers as well as chemical reagents…

The United States’ major funders, the NIH, the NSF, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), as well as the Gates Foundation, have though been rather ambivalent when it comes to Russian science. The HHMI, like some of the others, denied having any funding involvement with teams inside Russia. Yet, the question was whether any collaboration assisted by HHMI had any involvement of Russian scientists who may not have been themselves in receipt of such moneys. The HHMI still publicizes on its website how in 2015 it helped stage a summer school for talented Russian high‐school biology students to experience work at a US laboratory (https://www.hhmi.org/bulletin/winter‐2015/immersion‐lab). Thus remains the question whether HHMI would still indulge in such activities, which its spokesperson declined to comment. Similarly, the NSF, NIH, and Gates Foundation would not comment on whether they were changing their stance on funding collaborative or exchange activities with Russian groups, scientists, or students either directly or indirectly. Both the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China, also declined to comment on their policies regarding Russia.

The effect of sanctions

Russian scientists themselves, at least a significant group, are dismayed about the invasion. More than 3000 of the country’s scientists and science journalists signed an open letter on March 3^rd protesting that their government’s war against Ukraine was unjust and highly injurious to Russia’s reputation, although the original website on which it was posted has since been taken down (https://access2perspectives.org/2022/02/an‐open‐letter‐from‐russian‐scientists‐and‐science‐journalists‐against‐the‐war‐with‐ukraine/).

This letter was followed by the first inkling of the impact sanctions were having on Russian science. Andrey Komissarov from the Smorodintsev Research Institute of Influenza reported that his laboratory was seeing some supplies running short and anticipated such issues intensifying, due to disruptions to funding. Evidence of sanctions biting accumulated during March as a result of export controls which deprived laboratories of computers as well as chemical reagents as some leading makers of lab equipment and instruments ceased trading with Russia. The EU had already banned export of technical equipment of various kinds, with German company Zeiss stopping all orders, shipments, and provision of services to Russia until further notice, with the exception of medical devices.

Similar impositions were imposed by other equipment makers elsewhere. Japan’s Nikon, which makes microscopes as well as cameras, ceased shipments to Russia until further notice, while Thermo Fisher Scientific, one of the biggest laboratory equipment makers in the world, has paused sales and manufacturing operations in Russia and Belarus, although, like Zeiss and others, they maintain the supply of healthcare‐related products.

Clearly, sanctions over Russian science will have an impact not just by cutting off supplies but also on human capital through collaboration. The objective though is to send a clear message that normal relations at a scientific level can only be re‐established when Russia as a whole stops the invasion of Ukraine. This requires at the same time keeping communications open and offering support to those Russian scientists who do succeed in leaving their country.

EMBO reports (2022) 23: e55160.