The Perceived Tension between Open Science and Research Security

Does the paradigm “as open as possible, as closed as necessary” (or “intelligent openness”, as defined by the Royal Society) pose new challenges for scientists and institutions in view of rising international tensions? In this short commentary by the Helmholtz Open Science Office, we outline that this is generally not the case, and argue that open exchange of knowledge is and remains a cornerstone of science, also when research security requirements are changing.

Open science policies and practices aim at providing the broadest possible access to scientific knowledge, and they apply after an initial decision to publish has been made. The question whether to publish through open access platforms or through traditional subscription-based models is, however, irrelevant from a security perspective, as any online information is potentially accessible to anyone. Although rising security requirements do not necessarily suggest changes in the way research outcomes are published, they certainly influence decisions on what to publish. When publishing research outcomes – be it text, data, or software–, ensuring selective access only for trusted organizations or individuals is typically not a realistic option. Therefore, the consideration should rather be if security or privacy risks can be mitigated or if (part of the) outcomes should not be published at all. 

The real challenges arise much earlier in the research cycle and involve the careful selection (and possibly screening) of collaborators and agreeing on the legal frameworks and research integrity/ethics standards that apply. Sharing unpublished work with research partners requires careful consideration of whom to trust, especially in international contexts – see also recommendations such as those of CESAER (Conference of European Schools for Advanced Engineering Education and Research) or the joint guidelines of the G7. Nevertheless, broadly agreed research integrity standards require that collaborators have full access to original (published and unpublished) data and code to ensure the credibility and shared responsibility of joint outputs. As such, restricting this access for collaborators not only risks undermining effective collaboration but also conflicts with good scientific practices.

The actual tension is therefore less about balancing “Open Science vs. Research Security”, but rather concerns “Collaboration vs. Research Security”. We must, however, not forget that the solutions to the great challenges of our time can only be realized through global collaboration. The greater danger to open science lies in becoming overly cautious (i.e., qualifying outputs as security risks without proper justification) and thereby withholding valuable contributions from the scientific community and society. To avoid this, research institutions are expected to put in place the appropriate mechanisms to carefully weigh security concerns when establishing collaborations, so that principles of openness and integrity can be upheld.