Open Science and Global Progress: The Politics of Knowledge Sharing
From equity to security, the drive to share scientific knowledge is reshaping how research influences policy and international cooperation.
For more than a decade, governments have endorsed open science as a shared principle. Today, they are deciding and often quietly, case by case, how much openness they can still afford.
Governments and scientific institutions broadly agree that open access to research can speed innovation, reduce duplication, and widen participation. A UNESCO recommendation adopted by 194 member countries frames open science as a way to make scientific knowledge “more accessible, inclusive and equitable for all,” highlighting both its promise and its complexity.
What remains unsettled is how openness should function in a world where scientific knowledge underpins industrial advantage, strategic technologies, and crisis response. That tension has moved to the center of international science policy debates.
Advocates of open science argue that global challenges, ranging from pandemics to climate change and food security, depend on rapid, cooperative research. In UNESCO’s framework, open science is treated explicitly as a public good.
Yet recent experience suggests the reality is more uneven. Researchers writing in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications found the COVID-19 pandemic exposed what they described as “selective openness.” While early data sharing was unprecedented, their 2024 study showed that access expanded or contracted depending on national priorities.
“Rather than the pandemic having an entirely progressive impact on open science,” the authors wrote, “some of the deeper questions about global equity did not feature in the debate as prominently as might have been expected.” They noted that this imbalance could still change, particularly among countries that supported UNESCO’s recommendation.
At the same time, governments face mounting pressure to protect sensitive research, secure supply chains, and ensure that publicly funded science delivers domestic economic returns. Export controls and research security reviews in fields such as biotechnology and advanced computing increasingly coexist with formal commitments to openness, complicating how knowledge is shared in practice.
Public discussions hosted by Frontiers Science House, a science convening platform launched by the open-access publisher Frontiers, reflected these competing pressures. In a keynote address, Frontiers co-founder and CEO Kamila Markram said the goal was to “give scientists a seat at the table with policymakers and business leaders,” while also showing that research can often advance faster “by simply making it openly accessible.”
Her remarks underscored a recurring theme: openness alone does not guarantee equitable participation. Speakers from research institutions, philanthropic organizations, and technology sectors stressed that open science must be paired with investment in infrastructure, skills, and local research capacity to avoid reinforcing existing imbalances.
UNESCO’s own recommendation reflects that concern. The 36-page document links openness to access, capacity-building, and science literacy, along with long-term data stewardship. It places greater emphasis on opportunity than on risk, while acknowledging that the digital era introduces new governance challenges.
That optimism is increasingly tested by parallel policy developments. In late 2025, the Group of Seven wealthy industrialized nations issued updated research security principles urging countries to better protect sensitive research and prevent unintended technology transfer, a counterweight to UNESCO’s emphasis on openness.
Intellectual property adds another layer of tension. Universities and public research agencies are encouraged to share findings quickly, yet are also expected to translate discoveries into economic value through patents and licensing. In sectors such as pharmaceuticals, energy systems, and artificial intelligence, the line between open research and proprietary application is increasingly contested.
Security concerns further narrow the space for unrestricted openness. Governments now treat areas such as dual-use life sciences and advanced computing as strategic domains. Policies designed to safeguard national interests, from export controls to scrutiny of international collaborations, sit uneasily alongside open science commitments.
In a 2024 report on European competitiveness commissioned by the European Union, former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi called for recalibrating international research cooperation to better protect domestic innovation. While affirming that open science remains a core European value, he warned that geopolitical fragmentation requires caution, recommending that research programs be “as open as possible and as closed as necessary.”
Concerns about researcher safety have also entered the debate. That same year, Philippine Secretary of Science and Technology Renato Solidum Jr. told UNESCO’s executive board that open science cannot succeed if scientists themselves are vulnerable.
“Since science, technology and innovation are powerful tools to address the world’s pressing issues,” Solidum said, “it is only high time that we push for the call to action on the freedom and safety of scientists.”
The result is a fragmented landscape. Some areas of research are moving toward greater openness, while others face tighter controls. Rather than converging on a single global model, countries and institutions are drawing boundaries field by field.
For science diplomacy, the shift is consequential. Open science has long functioned as a confidence-building practice, keeping cooperation alive even when politics are strained. As openness becomes more conditional, diplomats and research leaders face harder choices about where cooperation ends and control begins.
In her June 2025 “State of the Science” address, U.S. National Academy of Sciences President Marcia McNutt warned against retreating from international cooperation.
“The [U.S.] retreat from international collaborations has been an unforced error,” she said. “There is no better time to do this than with the growing number of scientifically advanced nations and the growing cost of cutting-edge facilities.”