Technology Transfer at the Crossroads of Openness and Security

A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since 2016, when Commissioner Carlos Moedas unveiled "Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World", a visionary blueprint that redefined EU research and innovation policy around three pillars: collaborative ecosystems, data and knowledge sharing and global partnerships.

In Moedas' vision, Open Innovation represents a fundamental shift from traditional, closed R&D processes towards dynamic collaborative environments, where knowledge flows between businesses, academia, citizens and public authorities and where users play a central role in co-creation processes. Open Science, in turn, reimagined research as more collaborative, inclusive and transparent, promoting open access to data and publications, citizen science and FAIR data principles. Finally, Open to the World embraced globalization by encouraging international collaboration, researcher mobility and knowledge exchange to address shared global challenges.

Crucially, this vision was never about “openness at any cost” but about strategic openness. It is in this context that the principle “as open as possible, as closed as necessary” emerged as the balancing rule for implementing the three pillars. The principle was designed, in particular, to reconcile the structural tension between open access to publications and open research data - aimed at reproducibility and transparency – and the protection of intellectual property as a key incentive for private investment, commercialization and technology transfer, in order to generate economic and societal impact.

With the launch of Horizon Europe, Open Science became a legal obligation, with the explicit objective of increasing transparency, trust in science and the societal impact of publicly funded research. At the same time, the principle “as open as possible, as closed as necessary” was reaffirmed: openness is the default regime but access to publications, data or other research outputs may be restricted when justified by legitimate interests. Such interests include, among others, the protection of personal data and privacy, confidentiality obligations, intellectual property rights and the need to enable the commercial exploitation of research results.

Importantly, Horizon Europe clarifies that Open Science and the exploitation of results are not in conflict. Activities such as patenting and commercialization are fully compatible with open science, provided that decisions on intellectual property protection are taken before public disclosure. Once appropriate protection measures are in place, open access to publications and research data remains the default. The common denominator between Open Science and research commercialization is the pursuit of societal impact. In many cases, a fully open approach - where research results are shared early and knowledge is widely and freely disseminated – may be the most effective way to maximize impact. In other cases, however, greater value may be achieved if, before sharing knowledge and data, research results are protected through intellectual property rights, in order to attract private investments, license technologies and create new jobs. The real challenge lies in identifying the right balance between openness and closure and in understanding how research can generate the greatest value and impact.

Researchers should not be left alone to navigate these strategic decisions. They require coordinated and synergistic support from the different professional functions within universities and research organisations, including knowledge and technology transfer managers, research managers, data stewards and librarians. This is precisely the objective of the IP4OS project (ip4os.eu), which promotes a synergistic approach to open science and intellectual property management by experimenting a model of multi-professional teams, that accompany researchers throughout the entire research lifecycle, ensuring effective knowledge valorisation in line with the principle “as open as possible, as closed as necessary”.

As if this balancing act were not complex enough, the past decade has introduced a third critical variable: research security. Recent geopolitical developments and the increasing strategic relevance of research and innovation have led the EU to further refine how openness is operationalised. The European Economic Security Strategy confirms that openness remains the “bedrock” of Europe’s innovative economy, while also recognizing that certain research activities and knowledge flows can create security risks, particularly in sensitive or critical technological domains. In this context, the principle of “as open as possible, as closed as necessary” has acquired an additional and increasingly important research security dimension.

Historically, the “closed as necessary” component of the principle primarily addressed the protection of intellectual property, commercial exploitation, personal data, confidentiality, and ethical constraints, whereas today it must also take into account risks related to technology leakage—particularly for dual-use technologies—malign foreign interference, and the misuse of research results that could undermine security, ethical standards, or EU strategic autonomy. The EU approach to research security does not replace openness with closure nor impose systematic restrictions on international cooperation but instead introduces a risk-based governance model in which openness remains the default, restrictions are targeted, proportionate, and justified, and research-performing organisations are expected to implement appropriate risk assessment and mitigation measures. Accordingly, Horizon Europe remains designed to be as open as possible and as closed as necessary, including with regard to research security, ensuring that Open Science obligations are upheld while aligning openness with the EU’s security, ethical values and long-term competitiveness; in this way, the principle continues to underpin open science under Horizon Europe, albeit in a more strategic and security-aware form that balances open science, innovation, international cooperation, and security through informed risk assessment, enabling Europe to remain both open and resilient in a rapidly changing global environment.

How to implement this in practice, however, remains a challenge. Not all universities and research organisations have yet developed well-coordinated policies aligning Open Science principles, research commercialization practices and research security considerations. Now more than ever, these complex issues must be addressed in a synergistic and coordinated manner, both within and across institutions. Knowledge and technology transfer professionals are uniquely positioned to contribute to this effort. Their role extends beyond protecting and commercialising research results to the responsible governance of knowledge flows, in line with Open Science obligations, innovation objectives, and emerging research security requirements. By combining early engagement with researchers, risk-based assessments, smart IP strategies, and strong institutional coordination, KTT professionals can play a key role in ensuring that European research remains open by default, protected when necessary, and secure by design.

*AI language model was used to assist with linguistic and stylistic improvements. Responsibility for the content rests entirely with the author.