After more than two years of a terrible war against Ukraine, the effects of this enduring aggression have led to dramatic effects on Ukraine, and the Ukrainian science and research system. Thousands of scientists have left their country, universities and research infrastructures in Ukraine have been seriously damaged. Scientific equipment and instruments have been damaged. The conditions to carry out research in Ukraine have significantly deteriorated.
Conducting science and sustaining a research system under these conditions is a permanent struggle.
Specifically, the situation in Eastern Ukraine, and in Kharkiv, is critical. The National Karazin University in Kharkiv, the Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology (KIPT NASU), and the Institute of Single Crystals NASU are among the research institutions that are hit most.
This thematic lunch table will discuss the current picture of the Ukrainian science system, and will try to identify the most urgent needs where support of science, and scientists, in Ukraine is most pressing.
Among the key questions to be addressed by this table:

• Which are lessons learned by previous and ongoing European and American support programmes and activities for Ukrainian science?
• Where should Western support be directed? For instance: Providing and shipping scientific equipment to replace damaged equipment; provide grants to scientists in Ukraine; establish more international collaborative ties and projects with the aim to support the further integration of the Ukrainian system into the international and ERA European Research Area.
• Which are the most relevant mid-term and long-term needs of sustainable Ukrainian research?
• How to avoid brain-drain from Ukraine, and to rather simulate brain circulation by support measures and programs?

The international debate on the governance of AI has gained immense traction in the past few years. One of the issues being discussed is how to govern the dual-use impact of AI, establishing international norms on the use of AI, while simultaneously respecting national technological, corporate, and security interests. National governments, such as the United States, and multilateral entities, such as the United Nations and NATO, have crafted frameworks to discuss and regulate the dual-use impact of AI. One of the problems that national and multilateral regulatory bodies face is the immense pace with which AI and AI-infused systems are developing. Also, the debates on commercial and security applications run in parallel, missing potential lessons from the opposite field. Another factor impacting international governance is geopolitical competition. This session highlights what different fields of research can contribute to a timely and viable governance framework for AI and its dual-use applicability.

The concept of Open Science with its pillars Open scientific knowledge, Open science infrastructures, Open engagement of societal actors and Open dialogue with other knowledge systems (UNESCO 2021) is playing an increasingly important role not only at national level, but also in international scientific collaboration. We will discuss some aspects of Open Science with regard to the „Principles & Policies for International Scientific Collaboration“ formulated by the international round table of physics organizations. How could these crucial principles Integrity, Transparency and Reciprocity be realized under the conditions of Open Science, what can governments do to enable collaboration, and what additional aspects do we need to consider in view of today’s global challenges and growing political tensions in the world?

Science has made significant strides in understanding fundamental biological processes, yet substantial knowledge gaps persist regarding their implications for health and disease. The recent COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the global nature of these challenges and the urgent need for global coordination in combating them. Unfortunately, while opportunities for collaborative activities exist within different geographical regions like North America, Europe or the Far East that are well established, they are very limited across these regions. To overcome these limitations, the European Molecular Biology Laboratory and Stanford University have established the Life Science Alliance (www.embl.org/about/info/life-science-alliance/) about a decade ago. The Alliance aims to promote cutting edge joint research activities, training and scientific education across the partner sites, which are supported by external funding partners. This thematic table convenes experts from the partners of the Alliance to explore how transatlantic collaborative endeavors facilitate the development of transformative technologies and therapeutics, thus expediting biomedical research and translating its impact into improving human health.

Research infrastructures are important knowledge hubs that offer strong opportunities for scientific communities. Through scientific and technological advancements, they contribute to pressing solutions of our societies and have strong impacts on the socio-economic developments. However, almost all research facilities are concentrated in economically well-developed regions of the world. The synchrotron radiation source SESAME (Synchrotron-light for Experimental Science and Applications in the Middle East), located in Jordan, represents a most notable exception, and another facility under planning is the African Light Source (AfLS), which is being designed to drive science, innovation and technologies for the regional needs in Africa. In this thematic table we discuss how research infrastructures could better contribute to capacity-building in economically less developed countries and how a transatlantic partnership could help to foster these developments.

Internationalization is one of the core missions of universities worldwide. The excellence of research is based on interdisciplinarity, diversity, and cross-segmental collaborations, which are fostered and accelerated through internationalization.
In view of recent geopolitical upheavals, international scientific cooperation has undergone rapid changes and faces new challenges. Against this backdrop, research security has become a matter of national security. In June 2023, Germany’s Federal Government adopted a National Security Strategy that offers an "integrated" concept of security as a centerpiece of its scope. The strategy emphasizes the role of science and research and their importance as the basis for Germany's innovative strength and technological sovereignty.
For universities and research institutions, it is, therefore, of central importance to review existing or future international collaborations. The German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), and more specifically its central coordination point for international academic collaboration, KIWi, has played a significant role in promoting exchange and peer learning and establishing guidelines for German universities on how to deal with security risks while fostering internationalization on a structural, institutional, and research level.
The DAAD’s position is that international exchange and academic and research cooperation should be interest-orientated, value-based, and risk-reflective. This requires, among other things, being sensitized to risks and knowing how to minimize them in practice.
De-risking concerns in Germany must be considered in the context of open science, university autonomy, and academic freedom—all of which are highly prized under the country's federal structure and anchored in the German constitution. At the same time, the legality and viability of de-risking measures can be legitimately threatened by a diverse level of protection at the EU level, especially in the Schengen open borders area. De-risking procedures may be more consistent and reliable if the European Research Area (ERA) was subject to proposed rules for a similar degree of protection.
What does this mean for universities and Research Institutions in practice? How can institutions learn from each other on a national, European, and transatlantic level? What impact do different approaches to Security Issues have among European partners and on transatlantic cooperations in HE? How can political ambitions, internationalization missions, and security concerns be prioritized, balanced, and communicated?
This international thematic table aims to bring together German, European and North American perspectives and discuss European and transatlantic approaches, best practices and strategies to learn from each other, define common interests and foster strong attitudes towards reflective recommendations for action.

More information on this Thematic Table will follow soon.

More information on this Thematic Table will follow soon.