Research in turbulent times

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the Academy, members of The Young Academy, members of the Society of Arts, invitees and guests. On behalf of the Academy, I would like to welcome all of you to the Trippenhuis Building, and extend a special welcome to Professor Philomena Essed, who will be receiving our Academy Medal later this afternoon.

Let me begin by expressing my gratitude to all those who have, once again, done their utmost for the Academy in the past year, in many different ways. I would also like to thank our partners, both in the Netherlands and abroad, for their commitment to the Academy, and each and every one of you for being here today.

Today marks the conclusion of our Month of Freedom. This month began on May 5 with a Freedom Lunch for our neighbours in the Trippenhuis Building. That was followed by various gatherings organised in cooperation with De Balie and other partners. We also celebrated the eightieth anniversary of the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies. On 15 May, we published a report on academic freedom in the Netherlands. And now, we are concluding our Month of Freedom with our Annual Academy Meeting.

Our theme today is ‘Research in turbulent times’ and I would like to thank our speakers for offering their thoughts on the present and sharing their memories of the past. I look forward to the panel discussion on the same topic that will follow.

And yes, these are turbulent times for research. Much has happened in the research world the past year that has caused us to raise concern. In November, we took out a full-page advertisement in the national newspapers on behalf of our members, expressing our concern about the major cuts to research and innovation proposed by the now outgoing government. We then took our protest to the streets, along with many others.

We are also concerned about the extent to which academic freedom is under pressure in the Netherlands, and we are deeply troubled by the daily assault on academic freedom and research in the United States.

Science for society

But let’s look ahead as well!

In the report we published last month on academic freedom, we made specific recommendations regarding what government should and should not do to safeguard academic freedom in the Netherlands. Examples include: leaving room for curiosity-driven independent research; scrapping the planned foreign-language assessment for study programmes; and standing up for scientists who are under threat. And that is important! UNESCO Netherlands and the rectors of Dutch universities have joined our call in recent weeks.

In addition, it is of course also important to consider what research itself can contribute, and today’s meeting seemed like an appropriate occasion to emphasise this. What exactly is the process of undertaking research that is important for society now or in the future? Why is academic freedom a necessary prerequisite for that process, and what are the associated responsibilities? In short, how do we ensure that we can keep our promise to society?

I would like to discuss this by looking at three scientific breakthroughs, insights and developments that made the national headlines in the past month. Each of these three examples is impacting society today but also tells a story that considers the past and the future.

Research is a long-term effort

The first example comes from a news article that appeared in national newspaper de Volkskrant on 17 May. For the first time ever, a team at a hospital in Philadelphia succeeded, at least for now, in curing a baby with a fatal disorder caused by an error in the genetic code of a single protein. They did so using personalised gene editing therapy that altered the defective DNA in the baby’s liver cells and restored the protein’s natural function. This medical breakthrough was made possible largely thanks to long-term government grants made available by the National Institutes of Health or NIH. It is precisely this type of government funding that is currently under siege in the United States.

Underpinning this success is the now widely known CRISPR technology, which makes it possible to make precise changes to DNA inside living cells. In 2020, French researcher Emmanuelle Charpentier and American researcher Jennifer Doudna were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for this discovery, based on breakthrough research that they published jointly in 2012. The story goes that they met at a café in Puerto Rico in 2011, during an international conference, and decided then and there to work together. It was the kind of international gathering that is under serious threat today in the United States.

This example illustrates that research is a long-term effort. The breakthrough came about thanks to decades of government-funded research into genetics, molecular biology and gene therapy. It shows the importance of investing in curiosity-driven independent research, even if the relevance to society is not immediately obvious.

This example also shows how important it is to probe the ethical implications of applications derived from research, one of the responsibilities that scientists bear. How desirable is it to manipulate the DNA in living human cells? How expensive are these new therapies, and how does that affect their accessibility for various population groups? And how sustainable can healthcare be in the long term, given our ever-expanding repertoire of treatment techniques?

Research connects past and present

The second example concerns a news article published in national newspaper het Parool on May 21. It was the day on which Jeroen Kemperman, researcher at the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, received his PhD from the University of Amsterdam. The City of Amsterdam had asked him to investigate its role in the persecution of Jews during the Second World War. His conclusions were harsh: Amsterdam’s municipal government had played ‘a central role in the persecution of Jews and the exclusion and disenfranchisement of its Jewish residents’. The social impact of this research was immediate: Amsterdam's Mayor Femke Halsema formally apologised for the part the city played during the Holocaust.

This research on the Second World War may also be of significance to contemporary society in other ways. After all, it shows how people behave under duress and under what circumstances democracy may be cast aside. While it is always dangerous to draw direct parallels between the past and the present, Kemperman's research does give us food for thought and may make us more resilient and alert.

And there is yet another way in which the NIOD's expertise is relevant today. Society and the academic world are struggling with the question of how to respond to the current war in Gaza. It is essential that academics use their expertise to inform the public dialogue on this issue, as the NIOD is doing. Just last week, NIOD director Martijn Eickhoff was invited to the Dutch House of Representatives to discuss his assessment of the violence in Gaza.

Research informs long-term policy

The third example is an article that appeared on the website of the Dutch public news broadcaster NOS, once again on 17 May. The article concerned an annual report published by scientists on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. One of the organisations that performs the necessary measurements is the NOAA, a US government agency that is now also under threat.

We have known for some time that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising, but the increase was sharper in the past year than expected. It is possible - with an emphasis on the word possible - that the reason for this sharp increase is nature’s declining ability to absorb carbon dioxide. The NOS article quotes Academy member Guido van der Werf, who specialises in wildfires and carbon dioxide. He explains that the extra carbon dioxide appears to be caused in part by the growing number of wildfires emitting more carbon dioxide, coupled with a simultaneous decline in CO2 absorption by forests worldwide.

This type of research is crucial for informing long-term climate change policy, but also for considering how to manage the growing number of wildfires in the first place. On 19 May, the EASAC released a report with recommendations on reducing, and managing, the growing number of wildfires in Europe. EASAC is the European Academies Science Advisory Council, a network of European academies of sciences that advise on EU-wide and individual member state policies. EASAC bases its reports on the expertise of researchers such as Guido van der Werf.

This topic also gives rise to frequent discussion regarding the desirability of science activism, referring to scientists and scholars who not only report their findings but also take action to influence political and social change. It is up to our political leaders to take decisions on climate change policy, and up to scientists to deliver the relevant knowledge. The dilemma for scientists is how, precisely, to inform that policy. As Guido van der Werf put it: ‘It's still a tricky trade-off between scientific prudence and timely warnings’.

Freedom and responsibility

These examples - and I’m sure I could have found others if I had decided to scan the news in a different month - show us nicely what the mission of science is. They show how asking unrestrained questions, sometimes sparked purely by curiosity, relates to the corresponding responsibilities towards science and society, now and in the future.

If research is to function properly, academic freedom is crucial. It means having the freedom to ask questions, to choose research methods, and to communicate the results without fearing negative repercussions. Moreover, for Dutch society to function properly, its people must feel confident that the knowledge they receive is not driven by political, government or corporate interests. And that researchers are shedding light on all of the various perspectives important for society without ideological or other bias, and without excluding knowledge unwelcome to politicians from public debate.

That's something that still requires quite a bit of work. In his farewell lecture last year, Academy member Mark Bovens warned that ‘large swathes of society do not regard universities as belonging to them’. He asks a legitimate question: is research in fact addressing all of the important problems facing society? A 2023 report by Technopolis, moreover, reveals the prevalence of self-censorship among researchers, teachers and students in the Netherlands. Such reticence is due to threats against researchers when they draw on their expertise to engage in public debate, but it is also fuelled by internal processes within the academic community. This too is clearly a mission for us.

How do we move forward?

How do we move forward? It’s important for research to continue the process of critical self-examination and to adapt to the changing needs of society. It’s important for the research community to accept criticism from the outside, and to seek out and identify new ways to engage in dialogue with society, like the wonderful example we have just been given.

At the same time, researchers bear the important responsibility of keeping their eye on the ball. Our mission remains the same: to develop new knowledge in every domain of science and scholarship, and to make new connections that may be relevant for society, now or in the future.

I further think it is our mission, as a community, to stand guard over academia. That means defending and drawing attention to its importance and its values. Once our new government will be formed, we will once more advocate vigorously for investment in research and innovation, for investment in the coming generation, for appreciation of international talent, for the importance of international cooperation, and for the defence of academic freedom.

In our capacity as an advisory body, we will continue our efforts to improve academia in the Netherlands.

In response to our report on academic freedom and other developments, the Minister of Education, Culture and Science informed the House of Representatives last Friday that he plans to ask the Academy to advise on whether the current legal basis for academic freedom in the Netherlands is adequate. He also announced that he plans to ask the Academy to advise on the distinction between academic freedom and freedom of expression in science activism. We look forward to receiving his requests.

We have also taken it upon ourselves to analyse the funding system for academic research and education in the Netherlands. In future, it will become increasingly important to create a system that leaves enough room for curiosity-driven independent research while also fostering mutual cooperation, neither of which is currently the case. We hope to present alternative scenarios that will offer the current minister or his successor guidance in their thinking.

Choose Europe for Science

For my final remarks, I would like to return to the topic of Europe, which I touched on last year. The theme of our Annual Academy Meeting then was ‘Research knows no borders’. In the past year, we have unfortunately seen that threats to research also know no borders. The assault on academia in the United States has direct consequences for research in the Netherlands and Europe.

A fortnight ago, I was invited to the House of Representatives to discuss what is happening in the US and possible related threats to academic freedom in the Netherlands. A week later, the WRR-Scientific Council for Government Policy and the AWTI-Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innovation organised a debate on opportunities and threats for innovation, science and R&D in a time of American isolationism. Of course, in both discussions the connection with Europe was quickly made.

As is the case for resilience and strategic autonomy, the way forward for research obviously lies in closer cooperation and greater shared investment in Europe, including a move towards digital autonomy.

As Ursula von der Leyen put it in her lecture at the Sorbonne on 5 May, ‘Choose Europe for Science’. To which she added: ‘Our first priority is to ensure that science in Europe remains open and free’.

And that strikes me as a fine closing sentence for my address.