-- Check against delivery --

Dear Minister Bernini, esteemed research Ministers of the G7, Ladies and Gentlemen, 

It is a privilege to address you today on the vital issues of research security and integrity, open science and science communication. It is clear that these are all interrelated. 

I have been asked to speak to you from the point of view of both a practising scientist and as President of the European Research Council (ERC). 

Very briefly for those of you who are not familiar with the ERC: the European Research Council is part of the EU’s Horizon Europe programme, which is under the responsibility of Commissioner Iliana Ivanova. The ERC funds researcher-proposed innovative projects in all areas of academic research. In a Europe-wide competition, projects are selected through peer review by international panels of experts based exclusively on the criterion of excellence. The ERC has a €2 billion annual budget, independent of each country’s national funding. Researchers from countries outside Europe and from associated countries can participate in a range of components of the programme. Open dissemination of research results is mandatory. 

Science is collective, public and international. It has been this way since the earliest days of modern science, when Copernicus' heliocentric theory spread through Europe via the “Society of Letters.” The first learned societies, academies and even universities were set up by scholars themselves. People who were excited to share the latest ideas and experimental results. 

I want to relate some experience from my own lab. Like these 15th century scholars, present-day students like to go to conferences and share their own results and hear those of others. But they often would come to me beforehand to ask if it was safe to report their latest findings, or whether they might get scooped if they did. I always told them they would likely gain more from disclosing their results and getting interesting feedback than keeping it secret. 

And invariably those who just attended and listened came back with new knowledge, but those who opened up came back in addition with specific ideas and inspiration that took their own projects to new levels. And I will be wanting to make the point that this is a good allegory for countries as well.

Science progresses through the collision of ideas, by verification, analysis, reproduction, and refinement. That is why scientists publish their research, present it at conferences, and discuss it with their peers - who are as likely to be found on the other side of the world as on your corridor. Commitment to international collaboration and open science are therefore essential for maximising the impact of our research and accelerating innovation and societal benefit. 

We, our societies, face challenges that require collective action - climate change, pandemics and sustainable development, to name but three. These challenges do not respect borders, and neither can our research efforts. International cooperation has been the bedrock of numerous scientific breakthroughs, and in our efforts to protect our research, we must not inadvertently stifle the very collaboration that drives innovation. 

Consider the Human Genome Project in the 1990s (opposed by many at the time!), which mapped the entire human genome, paving the way for advances in medicine and genetics, to this day, forming, for example, the basis for today’s personalised medicine. 

The sequencing of the SARS2 virus is perhaps an even better example. International sharing of sequence data provided the basis for tracking the virus, seeing it evolve, and of course to produce the vaccines.

The scientific method itself relies on rigorous testing, constant questioning, and the acceptance of uncertainty. Negative results and disputes between scientists are not signs of failure but core aspects of the process that lead to deeper understanding and breakthroughs. 

To build trust and understanding of science it is crucial to communicate to decision makers and the public that doing science is difficult. And that every step, even the missteps, contributes to progress. Uncertainty – at least in frontier science – is the norm. 

Many scientists engage with the public and the media in inspiring and innovative ways. It is important to remember that the last thing those members of the public who don’t trust scientists want, is those very scientists explaining the facts to them. Through our Public Engagement with Research Award, the ERC recognises their efforts and creativity in engaging in other ways. The media are a key multiplier when it comes to science communication, which is why we have also launched an initiative that enables journalists to spend some time with ERC grantees in their labs. 

Openness and communication are the default setting of science. While rivalries and competition exist, the essence of scientific work is to publish and communicate results to expand human knowledge. 

However, amid the current geopolitical tensions and rising economic uncertainty, many governments now have concerns over fully open global cooperation. Countries are striving for greater national autonomy, to secure supply chains and boost their industries. One part of this new policy trend is to control cooperation, including scientific collaboration. 

Scientists understand the need to enhance economic and physical security - we are citizens too - but we find ourselves in a precarious position. On the one hand, by default we want to make our work open and accessible, and indeed we are encouraged to do so, while on the other, we may now be required to protect some findings to ensure national security and competitiveness are not compromised. And I am not sure we and our institutions are sufficiently prepared and equipped for that, or that the task of assessing security risks should be imposed on researchers or institutions. 

I think we all agree that it is vital to uphold academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Researchers must be free to explore innovative ideas and engage with global peers without fear of undue restriction or surveillance. Most countries therefore adhere to a policy along the lines of “as open as possible, as closed as necessary” or “secure but open”. For example, the Office of Science and Technology Policy of the White House (OSTP) suggests that openness and security should not be seen exclusively as trade-offs. I am glad to see that the EU is taking a balanced approach in its recent Council recommendation on enhancing research security. 

The way I interpret these approaches is that safeguards should be tailored to address specific risks without imposing unnecessary burdens on researchers and institutions. While some risks are real and pressing, our response to such risks must be measured and proportionate.

It is also important to distinguish between basic and applied research. Basic research - often driven by pure curiosity and the desire to understand the world, and less immediate in its applications - must remain open. For applied research, closer to market (and possible dual-use), the risks may be more immediate. When assessing research security risks, this should be factored in.

Tough decisions will need to be made regarding restrictions or levels of technological readiness. Are we going to restrict collaborations with specific countries, organisations, or individuals? On particular technologies? Will scientists need to disclose their meetings, travel and affiliations? 

It must be clear that there are costs to applying restrictions. Closing down the free flow of information will slow progress in fields that are currently open. Excessive restrictions could also hinder the attraction and retention of top talent, crucial for technology competition, especially now when there is a strong international competition for top talent. A heavy-handed approach could lead to the unintended consequence of isolating our researchers and their institutions from valuable global partnerships. This isolation could diminish our collective scientific capacity and hinder our ability to address global challenges effectively together. 

By adopting a balanced approach, we can enhance research security while maintaining the openness that is essential for scientific discovery. Let us work together to create a secure yet collaborative research environment that continues to drive innovation and address the pressing needs of our world.