Too long for a comment:
You might be giving away your most promising source of future funding: the exploiting and extending of those tools and protocols.
Assuming that opening the source is accompanied by a corresponding license, making the code publicly available under a FOSS license may actually do the exact opposite:
It might ensure that you can exploit and extend those tools even after you leave your current institution, thus securing a promising advantage for future funding/employment negotiations.
- As a PhD student employed for doing the corresponding research by some university or research institute, you usually do not own the code you wrote. Instead, your employer has the copyright (depending on your legislation, you still may have the authorship rights, but the economic rights are your employer's).
- Other people may have been involved in the development, so they have intellectual rights to the code as well.
In this situation, a FOSS license can give legal certainty that you can go on using and developing the code after you leave your current university (which is not unlikely to happen after a PhD is finished).
Of course, the license must be granted by the holders of the copyright (university, co-authors' universities, etc.). This will not happen unless you
a) bring the matter to the attention of your university (supervisor, IP office, etc.)
b) you convince them that the FOSS license is good for them as well*
However going for such a FOSS license is IMHO advantageous for both you and your university:
- for you, because you can throw this piece of software into negotiations for your next job and go on using it.
- for your current university, as they have a much better chance that the code is maintained so they can go on using it. It is a huge difference between e.g. people in your current group using your code and your group finding someone else to take over the maintenance of the code.
I wrote might: because you'd have this advantage without FOSS license if you are the actual copyright holder of the code.
That would be the case, if you were not paid for doing the research (but e.g. only for being teaching assistant), or you were paid by a scholarship and didn't sign a contract that transfers the copyright of the work you do during you PhD to your university, you actually own your code. So you already have all rights to deal with your code in future as you like, and granting a FOSS license to the public doesn't change this.
* In my experience, IP offices tend to see $$ as soon as you start telling them that you developed a software, but have no idea about the costs of selling the software (infrastucture and ensuring maintenance) that you can in practice avoid with FOSS licenses.