At a European Parliament forum on research data on 1 October, academics and policymakers issued stark warnings that the twin pressures of geopolitics and market-driven data practices are undermining open science and international research collaboration. Thomas Hartung, a pharmacology professor with roles in both the United States and Europe and chief editor of the journal Frontiers in AI, said attendees were witnessing “growing political and commercial control” over research data — a constraint he framed as inimical to transparent and reproducible science.

The discussion, hosted in Brussels, reflected mounting unease among European officials about how data governance decisions are reshaping incentives for sharing. Speakers described a shift from a post‑Cold War research ecology, in which data moved freely among universities and laboratories, to an environment in which national security concerns, export controls and data localisation rules make cross-border work harder. At the same time, private-sector platforms and proprietary datasets are concentrating analytical tools and information behind commercial gates, altering who can access and validate scientific results.

Those dynamics carry practical consequences for policy and the integrity of research. When datasets, code or models are controlled by a handful of corporations, universities and smaller institutes lose bargaining power and the ability to reproduce findings independently. When states restrict data flows for strategic reasons, multinational collaborations — vital in areas such as climate science, pandemic preparedness and AI safety — can fragment along geopolitical lines. Several European officials at the forum argued these trends risk increasing duplication, slowing scientific progress and widening inequities between well‑resourced research centres and those with fewer resources.

European initiatives such as the European Open Science Cloud and Horizon Europe’s open science requirements are intended to provide public infrastructure and norms to support sharing and interoperability. Yet participants said those initiatives must be paired with clearer rules on data stewardship, licensing, and the terms under which private partners can host or monetise research inputs. Regulatory tools already in play — notably the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation and forthcoming data governance proposals — offer a legal foundation for protecting personal data and promoting reuse, but do not automatically address commercial gatekeeping or geopolitical fragmentation.

Policy remedies discussed at the forum ranged from increased public investment in open repositories and standards to stronger transparency requirements for private platforms that host critical datasets. Several speakers urged funders to condition grants on data accessibility and to support independent audits of proprietary models and algorithms used in academic research. They also called for diplomatic channels to keep scientific exchange insulated from broader political disputes.

The forum’s discussion was covered by Research Professional News, a Clarivate publication, in a subscriber‑only article that notes the meeting and experts’ concerns. The coverage highlights an emerging policy choice for European legislators and funding bodies: whether to double down on public infrastructure and legal safeguards that sustain open science, or to accept a research environment increasingly partitioned by security imperatives and commercial interests.

For policymakers, the immediate task is pragmatic: craft governance that preserves incentives to share, ensures equitable access to tools and data, and retains independent verification as a bedrock of scientific credibility. Without those measures, the participants warned, the collaborative ecosystem that underpins modern research risks being reshaped by forces that serve neither the public interest nor robust science.