Academy President’s Annual Address 2024: Research knows no borders

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the Academy, members of The Young Academy, members of the Society of Arts, and guests. 

Today we will be speaking about the power of science and scholarship in an international context, and discussing the importance of international collaboration and exchanges of knowledge and talent specifically for the future of Europe. I will, however, deliver the rest of my address in Dutch. A simultaneous translation into English will be provided that will be available in writing afterwards. The rest of the programme will be conducted in English, as we are very pleased to have Maria Chiara Carrozza as our distinguished guest today. 

Today we are focusing on the importance of international collaboration and an open science system. They are important for research itself, but above all to secure a strong future for the Netherlands and Europe in a rapidly changing world. To illustrate what it means to pursue science and scholarship in an international context, I will take my own experience in research as an example. In other words: “How can I make this about me?”.

Science and scholarship is by its very essence international 

The pursuit of science and scholarship, the process by which we gather knowledge and develop our understanding of the world around us, is an inherently international venture. The knowledge that we amassed at the start of this century is so vast that no researcher can hope to know everything even in their own subdiscipline. To improve our basic grasp of every domain of science and scholarship - something that humans are uniquely capable of doing - but to also gain knowledge that can help solve the complex problems of our time, we must cooperate and share knowledge. And knowledge-sharing of this kind has long taken place across national borders. Thank goodness.

The Netherlands has a very long and distinguished track record in science and scholarship. This is undoubtedly due in large part to our being champions of collaboration - a point often stressed by outgoing minister Robbert Dijkgraaf. But it is also because the Dutch are naturally eager to engage with the rest of the world and feel at ease doing so. We have a good command of foreign languages, we are curious about the rest of the world, and we have long welcomed international talents to our shores. As a result, the Netherlands is a high-profile country in research. We are in the vanguard of emerging fields and can therefore anticipate the opportunities presented by new and fast-evolving technologies and social insights. It is critical to our future prosperity and the future wellbeing of everyone in the Netherlands to maintain our ability to seize these opportunities.

That is why my main message today - a message that is also explicitly meant for our parliamentary representatives and policymakers in The Hague - is this: 

Nurture the Netherlands' position in the international research landscape

What do I mean by “nurture”? 

• Offer firm support to the open international science system that has made the Netherlands a powerhouse;
• Invest in research and development both here and in Europe, so that the Netherlands can remain at the forefront in the European context;
• And, most importantly: welcome the critical input and views of international talent, both students and all those who contribute to our research. 

My own experience

As a physics student at the University of Groningen in the late eighties, my interest was initially sparked by how mathematical formulas could be used to accurately predict the course of now well-understood processes in the natural world, or, conversely, by how mathematical calculations could be used to design experiments to test, or perhaps more importantly, to falsify ideas about how the natural world around us works. As I progressed to studying complex processes in the natural world that are quantitatively less well understood, for example the chromosome movement  in dividing cells, I also became increasingly aware of the importance of connecting knowledge from different disciplines and of seeking input from researchers elsewhere in the world. I studied in Rome for a year, backed by an exchange grant from the Italian government. I did PhDs in Paris and Princeton in the employ of the universities there. And I learned how to collaborate with other disciplines in Heidelberg at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory. 

Returning to the Netherlands after seven years, I had the opportunity to apply what I had learned abroad in a new research programme at AMOLF, a Dutch Research Council institute. It was there that I discovered the power of the open and international nature of the Dutch science system. Talented researchers from abroad are keen to come to the Netherlands and contribute to our research because of its accessibility and outstanding quality. We invariably ask our peers abroad to gauge the quality of our ideas, and they selflessly volunteer their time to make constructive comments, if all goes according to plan. Well, perhaps they are not being entirely selfless, since we do the same for them when asked. That is how we improve one another and science and scholarship, by modelling ourselves constantly on one another in the international context, and by honing each other’s ideas and sharing our insights. 

The team that worked on this research, initially at AMOLF and later at Delft University of Technology, included a diverse group of young researchers from the Netherlands and abroad, most of them employed on temporary contracts en route to a career in academia or elsewhere, in the Netherlands or abroad. In my particular group, these were young people from the Netherlands, Aruba, France, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Romania, Turkey, Russia, Mexico, Colombia, America, Iran, India, the Philippines and Japan. They all contributed to Dutch research, and many still contribute to Dutch society. And, of course, the Netherlands also contributed to their personal and career development and, in some cases, to the advancement of science and scholarship in the countries to which they returned. Just as the Italians, the French, and the Americans contributed to my personal and career development, and therefore to science and scholarship in the Netherlands. Moreover, we have conversations about and have gained a mutual understanding of our respective countries and cultures with all these people, not to mention with the many fellow researchers around the world with whom we cooperate formally, but much more often informally. That mutual understanding and respect can serve us very well when tensions rise in the world and we can keep these lines of communication open.

My personal experience is, in part, why I am absolutely convinced that we must continue our efforts to preserve the Netherlands’ open science system and its strong international component. It is crucial for ensuring that this country, and by extension Europe, remain robust and prosperous in the future. 

And as I mentioned at the start of this address: this has been my personal experience. But many scientists and scholars working in every conceivable domain have similar stories to tell. They may not all be the same, the details may differ, and not every discipline depends on international cooperation in the same way and to the same extent. But every single one of us knows that the broader our perspective and the more we are exposed to different views, the richer our research and the greater the chance that we can seize opportunities that will benefit the Netherlands going forward.

Dilemmas

Now, you may ask yourself - and quite rightly - whether research truly knows no borders. Should we in fact simply cooperate with every researcher in every country and welcome any scientist or scholar who wishes to come to the Netherlands? What about security or competitiveness or ethical considerations? Don’t they impose limits?

The answer is clear. Of course there are limits. It is vital to ask critical questions about every form of cooperation, even within our national borders in fact. Such questions may concern transparency, independence and underlying interests, openness and symmetry in knowledge-sharing, academic freedom and ethical or security considerations that play a role in the type of research or the partner involved.

If these questions specifically concern knowledge security, it will be more than obvious that vigilance is necessary, given the rapidly changing geopolitical landscape of the present day. Foreign interference and even espionage are facts of life, even in science and technology, and it does us no good to be naive about this. But at the same time, it is important to strike the right balance between the need for vigilance, and the measures that this entails, and the huge importance of seeking international collaboration, precisely because the Netherlands cannot hope to lead the way if we isolate ourselves from the international community, which also stretches beyond Europe. We raised the issue of that balance in the position paper that the Academy published on this topic last October, authored by our Committee for the Freedom of Scientific Pursuit.

I myself deal directly with these sorts of dilemmas in our research into synthetic cells. This is basic research that may eventually lead to the development of new, sustainable technology for producing materials or food products. Researchers in Asia have been watching our activities with interest. Assisted by security specialists, we constantly scrutinise our interactions.   

Another difficult and very timely discussion centres on cooperation with scientific and scholarly institutions in countries that are at war. Here again, the personal ties that we have with researchers in these countries might well help to find a pathway to peace, but it is equally possible that the knowledge made available in our collaboration will be used for non-peaceful ends. The balance that we must strike between the importance of cooperation on the one hand, and naivety versus vigilance on the other, is a matter of nuance, of tailor-made approaches, and of sizing up situations case by case. And we all know that this isn’t always easy in a rapidly polarising world.

What about the Academy?

Last month, in preparing for this Annual Meeting, the Academy made a strong case for maintaining an open and international science system in the Netherlands. It did so in response to comments in The Hague about reining in the international nature of Dutch universities, for instance by requiring many more Bachelor's courses to be taught in Dutch again. 

The Academy would first of all like to point out that in the Dutch university system, research and education are intertwined. Talented researchers from abroad who work in the Netherlands, whether or not temporarily, contribute to the quality of our research and, I would stress, our education. Such cross-fertilisation should be nurtured because it benefits both Dutch students and young people who move to the Netherlands from abroad to study. The latter group may come here because we offer programmes in English, but they have the potential to help the Netherlands meet the demands of its labour market in the future. Note that an independent national committee (the Van Zwol Committee) charged with studying demographic trends in the next quarter of this century stated in its report that highly educated workers, including talented workers from abroad, are crucial to achieving the Netherlands’ aim of becoming an outstanding knowledge economy. 

Regarding language policy in education, an Academy advisory report dating from 2017 - it seems like ages ago - remains absolutely relevant today. The essence of the Academy’s argument was that the language of instruction should be decided case by case based on the subject matter concerned, and that the autonomy of universities in this matter was paramount. Universities should of course consult closely on this to ensure the quality and accessibility of education for Dutch students and to preserve Dutch as a language of science and scholarship.

To manage student numbers, universities must obviously be given appropriate tools, for example to allow for regional differences and to be able to tailor their approach where necessary. The Academy therefore endorses the package of self-regulatory measures that the joint universities have drawn up in this regard.

Outline coalition agreement and 3% GDP

Regarding the preservation of an open science system in the Netherlands, the Academy is troubled by the outline coalition agreement presented earlier this month by the four parties who are in the process of forming our next government. Although the precise consequences are still unclear, the plans as they now stand lead us to suspect that the new government will do little to nurture the open and international nature of our science system. In fact, they cut huge sums from budgets in an effort to reduce the number of international students here, and will severely restrict English-language instruction in education.

And now that we’ve raised the topic of the outline coalition agreement, I must mention that the Academy is very concerned about a number of other plans affecting science and scholarship in the Netherlands, with knock-on effects for our country’s international standing in research. Like our neighbouring countries, the Netherlands has committed to achieving the Lisbon target of spending at least 3% of its GDP on R&D. The point is to ensure that the EU maintains its advantageous position vis-à-vis other parts of the world that spend even more on R&D. The Netherlands has lagged behind this target for many years, even in comparison to our neighbours, although two years ago it seemed that our now caretaker government was attempting to catch up. 

Going by the new plans presented on 16 May, however, we now appear to be taking a step backwards. They include structural budget cuts for sector plans that had just created twelve hundred permanent academic positions, meant to reduce workloads and sharpen the focus of university institutional profiles within all the domains of science and scholarship. The plans also foresee cutting the budget of the Fund for Research and Science, which supports curiosity-driven research and whose creation the Academy long advocated, for example in its “Rolling Grants” advisory report. However, this fund is also meant to support applied research at regional level and the promotion of open science, knowledge security and social safety in academia. Finally, the plans have cancelled the final two rounds of the National Growth Fund, meant to maintain the standard of Dutch innovativeness. It will be clear that we are making a U-turn in terms of spending 3% GDP on R&D, with all that this implies for the quality of the Dutch science system. This is not good for the Netherlands, and it is not good for Europe.

Our hope, of course, is that the government’s detailed plans will offer enough nuance to negotiate effective solutions. The Academy is naturally eager to have that conversation. 

Europe

Finally, I would like to draw attention to the importance of international collaboration in Europe, as that is what we will be highlighting for the rest of the afternoon. We are on the eve of elections for the European Parliament here in the Union. On 6 May, the presidents of the national academies in the 27 member states, myself included, called on the candidates to commit to promoting a robust, open and free system of research and education in Europe. We further asked them, as a group, to commit to spending on research and development, to refrain from erecting unnecessary barriers, and to stand up for academic freedom and autonomy.

I would like to express my gratitude here to all those who have continued to work hard for the Academy in many and various ways over the past year. I would also like to thank all of you for your interest in the Academy and for your presence here today.

I’m looking forward the year ahead!

Referenties

KNAW (2017) Nederlands en/of Engels. Taalkeuze met beleid in het Nederlands hoger onderwijs. Amsterdam

KNAW (2018) Spagaat of Duet? Verwevenheid van onderwijs en onderzoek aan Nederlandse universiteiten. Amsterdam

KNAW-De Jonge Akademie (2023) Wetenschap- Sterker voor de maatschappij van de toekomst. Manifest van de KNAW en de Jonge Akademie voor de formatie na de Tweede Kamerverkiezingen 2023

Universiteiten van Nederland (2024) Maatregelenpakket zelfregie: versterken Nederlandse taal en beheersen internationale instroom.

Staatscommissie Demografische Ontwikkelingen 2050, (2024) Gematigde groei – Rapport van de Staatscommissie Demografische Ontwikkelingen 2050, Den Haag

KNAW (2020) Het rolling-grantfonds. Kloppend hart voor ongebonden onderzoek. Amsterdam

KNAW (2019) Evenwicht in het wetenschapssysteem. De verhouding tussen ongebonden en strategisch onderzoek. Amsterdam

KNAW (2024) KNAW-Oproep tot behoud van een open wetenschapssysteem Koester internationaal wetenschappelijk talent en voer daarbij weloverwogen taalbeleid. Amsterdam

KNAW (2018) De aantrekkelijkheid van Nederland als onderzoeksland, Amsterdam

KNAW (2023) Kennisveiligheid - KNAW position paper. Amsterdam