By Yang Song and Rob McLay
Over the past few years, academic collaboration between China and leading universities across the globe has faced growing scrutiny. What began as an emphasis on national security and intellectual property in the United States has now extended to other regions, prompting institutions in Europe, Australia, and elsewhere to reevaluate their long-standing partnerships with Chinese universities. This blog post offers a panoramic view of these developments, focusing on recent examples, ongoing trends, and the broader implications for higher education worldwide.
- The University of Michigan–Shanghai Jiao Tong University Split
One of the most high-profile indicators of this shift was the University of Michigan’s (U-M) announcement that it would be ending its joint institute with Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU), effective in early 2025. For nearly two decades, the UM-SJTU Joint Institute offered dual-degree engineering programmes and opportunities for cultural exchange. However, growing concerns—sparked by a United States House of Representatives Select Committee report—highlighted potential national security risks and alleged technology transfers.
• Impact on Students: Approximately 1,400 students currently enrolled in the institute were told they could complete their degrees without disruption. Nonetheless, many expressed disappointment, viewing the closure as a politically driven decision that disrupts otherwise beneficial educational and research ventures.
• SJTU’s Position: While the university has yet to issue a formal statement, officials on the Chinese side indicated the decision was one-sided. They stressed that the partnership had facilitated positive academic exchange and questioned the rationale behind its termination. - The US Context: More Partnerships Under Pressure
The closure of the UM-SJTU Joint Institute is not an isolated event in the United States. In recent months, other universities have faced mounting pressure to reassess or shutter their collaborations with Chinese institutions:
• Georgia Tech – Tianjin University: Georgia Tech ended its operations with the Georgia Tech–Shenzhen Institute, founded with Tianjin University, amid heightened scrutiny over export controls and military-linked research.
• UC Berkeley – Tsinghua University: Partnerships focusing on engineering and technology have also drawn attention from US legislators who point to potential dual-use applications.
• University of Pittsburgh – Sichuan University: Similarly, this cross-border institute has faced calls for stricter oversight, reflecting the continuing spotlight on Sino-US research ties.
These developments echo concerns raised in a Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) report (2025) regarding the risk of sensitive technology transfers via joint academic programmes. As policy measures tighten, the trend of “decoupling” in higher education appears to be picking up steam, with some universities preemptively restructuring or terminating their partnerships to avoid compliance risks. - Europe: Heightened Due Diligence over Direct Closures
Europe has not been immune to these shifts. Though many European institutions prefer to implement rigorous due diligence procedures rather than abruptly closing partnerships, several high-profile collaborations are under review:
• Germany: The Sino-German University of Applied Sciences and partnerships between top technical universities (such as the Technical University of Munich or TU9 consortium members) with Chinese counterparts (e.g., Tsinghua and Tongji) have come under sharper scrutiny from German federal authorities, who emphasize the need for robust compliance in areas related to artificial intelligence, aerospace, and other dual-use technologies.
• United Kingdom: In the UK, major Sino-British collaborations—such as the University of Nottingham Ningbo and Xi’an Jiaotong–Liverpool University—are also reviewing their research portfolios. While these joint campuses remain operational, local media reports indicate heightened awareness of potential security and intellectual property risks.
• European University Association (EUA): The EUA has released guidelines urging members to adopt stricter risk assessment practices. In its 2025 report, the association highlights the balance between safeguarding sensitive research and maintaining the open dialogue necessary for scientific advancement. - Australia and Canada: Stricter Frameworks Emerge
Australia
For Australian universities, international partnerships have long been a cornerstone of research funding and global reputation. However, after a series of high-profile controversies over alleged intellectual property theft, the Australian government introduced guidelines requiring: - Greater Transparency: Universities must list all foreign collaborators and funding sources, particularly in STEM fields with dual-use potential.
- Regular Risk Assessments: Ongoing reviews of research partnerships to identify any security or compliance issues.
Several cooperative programmes, including those involving major research-intensive universities, have been scaled back or restructured to comply with these new rules.
Canada
Canadian institutions, while not as vocal in terminating partnerships, are increasingly cautious. Joint programmes in areas like quantum computing, biotechnology, and telecommunications now undergo extensive internal reviews. Policymakers have called for more robust processes to ensure any technology transfer aligns with national security guidelines. - Other Avenues for Collaboration: A Shift to “Multilateralism”
Some international networks and organisations offer alternative frameworks that seek to maintain global academic cooperation:
• Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU): APRU counts leading universities from the US, China, and across the Asia-Pacific region. Its leaders note that while bilateral ties may be strained, a multilateral approach—where many countries collaborate on shared research goals—can provide a buffer against growing geopolitical tensions.
• Informal Faculty-to-Faculty Collaborations: Recent findings from the Brookings Institution suggest that while formal joint institutes may be closing, faculty and researchers continue to collaborate informally on projects that pose minimal security risks, such as climate change research or basic science initiatives. - Consequences for Students, Faculty, and Global Research
- Slowing Innovation?
Many worry that the disruption of US-China collaborations in STEM could slow down global innovation. A Springer Nature study observed a decline in co-authored publications between American and Chinese researchers—particularly since 2017—raising questions about missed opportunities in areas like climate science, new energy, and healthcare. - Student Experience
For international students, fewer joint degrees and cross-border campuses mean fewer opportunities to gain multicultural perspectives—a loss that some see as detrimental to fostering global awareness and problem-solving skills. - Balancing National Security and Academic Openness
Policymakers argue that tighter controls are necessary to protect intellectual property and sensitive research. Faculty, however, often stress that open collaboration is vital to scientific progress. Striking this balance will likely remain a contentious issue for universities in the coming years. - Navigating a Complex Future
Despite the challenges, many institutions are finding ways to adapt:
• Selective Collaboration: Instead of ending ties wholesale, some universities choose to restrict joint research to non-sensitive fields, such as the arts, social sciences, or fundamental research unlikely to pose security risks.
• Enhanced Oversight: Universities worldwide are creating or expanding offices dedicated to vetting international partnerships, incorporating guidelines from bodies like the EUA or national governments.
• Evolving Funding Sources: As US and other Western governments restrict funding for certain international collaborations, universities may seek grants or private-sector partnerships that allow for continued research without falling foul of export controls.
References and Suggested Readings
- United States House of Representatives Select Committee on the CCP – Reports outlining national security concerns in US-China academic partnerships.
- CSIS (2025) – Technology Transfers and Academic Partnerships. A thorough analysis of dual-use technology issues.
- Brookings Institution (2024-25) – Working papers on the evolving nature of US-China R&D collaborations.
- Times Higher Education (2025) – Annual Global Academic Survey covering shifts in faculty attitudes toward international partnerships.
- European University Association (EUA) – Latest guidelines on managing risk in Sino-European research collaborations.
- Nature and Springer Nature – Articles examining the impact of reduced joint publications on global research output.
- The Chronicle of Higher Education – Ongoing coverage of policy changes, with a focus on implications for US-based universities.
Conclusion
The unraveling of long-standing academic partnerships—like the University of Michigan–Shanghai Jiao Tong University Joint Institute—reflects a broader realignment in global higher education. Although national security and intellectual property concerns have intensified scrutiny, faculty and students continue to advocate for balanced solutions that preserve the positive outcomes of international collaboration. Whether through multilateral networks, informal project-based work, or carefully delineated fields of research, new avenues for global academic engagement are already emerging.
How universities and governments navigate these changes will shape the educational and research landscape for years to come. The world’s most pressing challenges—pandemics, climate change, energy scarcity—require international collaboration. Striking the right balance between safeguarding sensitive research and maintaining the free exchange of ideas remains an ongoing challenge, and one that is likely to redefine the contours of global higher education for the foreseeable future.