A leading British institution, Sheffield Hallam University (SHU), ordered a suspension of major human-rights research examining forced labour and supply-chain abuses in China following pressure from Chinese authorities, the media has revealed.
In February, SHU asked prominent Professor Laura Murphy of the university’s Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice (HKC) to cease work on a project investigating the exploitation of the Uyghur Muslim minority in China’s labour system. The project had formed part of the centre’s “Forced Labour Lab” initiative, widely cited by governments and the United Nations. The university said it had suspended the work because of concerns over staff safety in China and insurance-coverage deficiencies.
Murphy said she was initially confused by the decision, and later understood that SHU may have traded academic freedom for access to the Chinese student market — a claim the university denies. “The university told me that a combination of administrative issues meant they could no longer support my work. But further inquiries suggested the university was explicitly trading my academic freedom for access to the Chinese student market,” she said.
Documentation viewed by the Guardian shows that in 2022 the Chinese foreign ministry branded the HKC a “vanguard for anti-China forces” and blocked SHU’s websites in China. In April 2024, three Chinese state-security officers visited SHU’s Beijing office and questioned a staff member for two hours about the HKC, with internal documentation noting the tone was “threatening” and that the message to cease research activities was “made clear”.
Emails from SHU staff acknowledged that “attempting to retain the business in China and publication of the [HKC] research are now untenable bedfellows.” SHU responded by halting the research, returning funding to the original grant provider — the nonprofit law foundation Global Rights Compliance (GRC) — and allowed a UK-based publication of the work later in June.
Although SHU in October lifted the restriction on Murphy’s work and publicly apologised, the eight-month hiatus is being interpreted by experts as a troubling precedent for academic freedom in the UK higher-education sector. “A university banning research because of a perceived legal risk is … a serious threat to academic freedom,” said James Murray of law firm Doyle Clayton, speaking on the broader implications.
The UK regulator of higher-education bodies, the Office for Students (OfS), declined to comment on the specific institution, but affirmed that the suppression of research on account of a foreign government’s disapproval is unacceptable in “practically any circumstances”.
In its statement, SHU insisted the decision was taken in the context of “a complex set of circumstances at the time, including being unable to secure the necessary professional indemnity insurance”. The university pledged to support Murphy’s ongoing research and reaffirmed its commitment to freedom of speech and academic freedom within the law.
Observers say the incident raises urgent questions about how UK universities balance academic independence with commercial and geopolitical pressures — especially when research may upset international partners or funding sources. While SHU reported that Chinese students comprised some 73 of its enrolments in 2024-25 (just 1.7 % of its international student body), the consequences of losing access or being blocked in China were clearly seen as significant.
As the UK government emphasises protections against foreign interference, the case serves as a warning that even prominent academic institutions may bow to external influence when large-scale research intersects with major state actors.
, ordered a suspension of major human-rights research examining forced labour){kind=link}