Areas

International agreements are the fundamental instrument of modern scientific collaboration, and can take many forms: from framework agreements or memoranda of understanding (MoU) that establish general relationships between institutions, to specific research project contracts or consortium agreements for European programs such as Horizon Europe.  

Each type of agreement requires adapted legal instruments – from standardized confidentiality clauses in framework agreements to detailed contracts with intellectual property sharing in specific projects – but they all share a common risk: becoming the way in which strategic knowledge, data or technology involuntarily leaves the control of Spanish institutions for destinations with opaque geopolitical, military or economic interests, with the consequent loss of value or reputation for researchers, the institution and the funding agencies.  

Considering and properly managing security in these agreements does not mean hindering internationalization, but rather providing it with solid legal instruments that protect research autonomy, ensuring that each agreement is an opportunity, not a vulnerability.  

A poorly drafted agreement turns a collaboration opportunity into a potential competitive and reputational loss for the research staff and the institution. 

How can security risks materialize?  

• Lack of reciprocity in clauses that give unlimited access to data, code, or results.
• Lack of clarity and transparency regarding who is behind the partner (ownership, financing, sensitive links).
• Use of the agreement to gain indirect access to key infrastructure or personnel.
• Legal obligations of the partner that may conflict with Spanish/European regulations.
• False sense of legal security due to not using the correct legal instrument for cooperation.  

Warning signs 

• Insistence on very broad clauses regarding access to data or results.
• Pressure to sign quickly without legal need.
• Lack of transparency regarding the ownership or financing structure of the international counterparty.
• Proposals for subcontracting with unidentified third parties.   

A research group signed a General Protocol of Action (GPA) with a foreign university for a joint project. Ambiguous clauses allowed the partner to publish results without consent. After 18 months, an article containing sensitive data belonging to the project was published without the knowledge of the Spanish team. A legal review revealed that the GPA did not adequately protect the shared intellectual property and was not the appropriate instrument for this type of collaboration due to its non-binding nature. 

Good practices  

BOARD

Research staff 

Research institutions 

Research funders (in the case of high-risk calls for proposals) 

There is good knowledge of the international partner, including affiliation, experience in the scientific field, interest in the project, and links with government agencies.  

Clear protocols for reviewing international agreements have been established, including consultation with legal services.  

The terms of the call require a review of international agreements. 

We have reflected on the specific knowledge and data to be shared, concluding that they are necessary for the intended collaboration. 

The institution has standardized templates and clauses regarding intellectual property, transfer of information, data and results, escape clauses, etc.  

The agreement has been submitted to the university's legal services for consultation, including verification that the signed legal instrument is appropriate for the type of collaboration desired.  

The necessary assistance is provided to the researchers for the review of the agreements, including due diligence processes ( knowledge of the partner). 

Possible incidents of results transfer are included as a section in the monitoring reports. 

A centralized registry is established for all international collaboration agreements signed by the institution.