Open Science is often presented as a solution to the multiple problems afflicting contemporary scientific practices, ranging from lack of reproducibility to dubious review procedures, inefficient communications, and lack of transparency around methods and circumstances of research. Much of the debate around Open Science and how it should be implemented verges, however, on the natural sciences – and particularly physics and biomedicine – as a reference point and model for research practice. It is also typically assumed that Open Science is a force for good for both science and society, making it possible for those who have so far been marginalized or excluded from knowledge-making processes to participate and contribute. In this talk, I challenge these two assumptions. I critique the idea of openness as “sharing resources” and propose an alternative understanding of the ideas of openness and transparency, grounded on a more engaged model for fostering the quality and inclusivity of research processes and outcomes. I close by suggesting ways to value a much wider diversity of research settings and domains – including agricultural research, marine and environmental science, and the humanities, arts and social sciences – as key interlocutors and precious models for Open Science implementation. See this presentation in this video recording.