Large study: Pub­lic fund­ing does not guar­an­tee open sci­ence

When universities and companies collaborate on publicly funded research projects, it is easy to assume that the results are automatically shared openly. But this is far from always the case.

In a new, large-scale study from CBS, researchers provide rare insight into the legal frameworks governing publicly supported research collaborations between universities and companies.

The researchers were granted access to nearly 500 cooperation agreements between universities and companies in Norway, forming one of the largest datasets of its kind.

And the conclusion is clear: Public funding does not automatically lead to greater knowledge sharing or fewer restrictions on research results.

“Many people assume that public funding in itself creates open science. But our analysis shows that this is not the case. It is also clear that transparency is not decided once the results are ready. It is decided when the contract is signed, long before the results are known,” says Christoph Grimpe, Professor at CBS.

The study is published in Research Policy.

Public ownership does not mean free access

The study examined nearly 500 contracts that define who can own and use research results from collaborations between universities and companies.

Universities often formally own the intellectual property rights, but in many projects companies are granted exploitation rights that allow them to use the results commercially. 

These rights are often exclusive, meaning that one company gains sole access to the results, limiting opportunities for others to access them.

The analysis also shows that public funding does not reduce the likelihood of contractual restrictions on publication. For example, companies may be granted the right to review or approve research before it can be published.

“Public funding reduces the likelihood of full industrial ownership, but it does not reduce restrictions on sharing results,” says Christoph Grimpe.

This does not mean that all projects end up closed. But it does show that openness does not automatically follow from public funding.

Many partners increase the likelihood of transparency

The large volume of contracts made it possible for the researchers to identify patterns in the data. 

Among other things, the study shows that projects with many and diverse partners typically face fewer restrictions, because no single actor can set the rules alone. 

By contrast, restrictions are more likely in projects with few partners or where industry plays a strong role in shaping the project.

These differences show that the degree of transparency is less about good intentions and more about the balance of power established in the contract from the outset.

How to achieve more transparency

If publicly funded research is to become more accessible, transparency must be integrated into the design itself, according to Christoph Grimpe. He points to two key measures:

First, authorities can set clearer requirements for what forms of review, approval and embargoes are acceptable in publicly supported projects. 

“If you are the one paying, you set the conditions,” says Christoph Grimpe.

Second, national standard contracts could strengthen universities’ negotiating position and increase transparency in collaborations by ensuring that all negotiations start from the same baseline.

As it stands, universities have their own standard contracts, which are adjusted in collaboration with the industry partner for the specific project. 

If authorities provided standard contracts, for example with built-in requirements for transparency, it would make it easier for universities to ensure that transparency becomes something companies must address every time, rather than something universities themselves have to raise.

Transparency with care in a new geopolitical reality

While the study highlights the need for more transparency, Grimpe also stresses that transparency is not desirable under all circumstances. 

Global competition has changed significantly, and research results can now be exploited rapidly by actors outside Europe.

“Open science cannot mean giving everything away to competitors,” he says.

He therefore argues for what is known as open strategic autonomy – a balance where transparency contributes to innovation and societal value without simultaneously weakening Europe’s technological position.

In practice, this means that certain research areas, for example within technology, energy, health and defence, are kept more restricted outside Europe, while other fields remain open. 

The study thus contributes to a broader discussion about how publicly funded research can best benefit society. 

It shows that the key to greater transparency lies not in the research process itself, but in the legal frameworks established long before the first experiment is conducted.