What is courageous science? We were asked that question on Thursday during de Diës of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciencesby the unsurpassed Coen Verbraak. This means that you cannot get away with a general answer, but have to name each other. The panel features quantum and nanoscientist Lieven Vandersypen, who sticks his neck out in his field of semiconductor technology and quantum computers; Judge Meta Vaandrager, who believes that the legal system should not yield to serious crime and that judges must remain ‘brave’. And your columnist.
And how am I brave? I am a historian, so first put courageous science into a historical perspective (not courageous, but fascinating). Nowadays, especially in the humanities and social sciences, courageous science is often interpreted as ‘speaking truth to power‘. Colleagues in international law denounce the Netherlands’ policy regarding Israel. Conflict researchers are deconstructing the military-industrial complex surrounding the war in Ukraine (and are of course also fully involved in the debate about Gaza). Historians expose the underexposed consequences of the past of slavery, including the entanglements of the House of Orange-Nassau in the colonial past. And let’s thank the many migration researchers and those who stand up for it climate justice don’t forget.
That’s all certainly brave. Although it is within the domain of the social sciences and humanities It can sometimes be courageous (but not necessarily scientific) to claim exactly the opposite. Anyway, for that you are serenaded outside the university on social media with approving chants from the anti-woke F-Side.
What is striking here is that courage within this domain is now often seen as a battle between independent science and an ominous government. You are courageous in the face of an alleged military-industrial complex, an oppressive and controlling government, manipulative business corporations or other forms of suffocating elites. That government, which could also be your own board of directors, against which you rebel and organize sit-ins or occupations.
There is that conflict. And the government creates that dichotomy of science vs. those in power are often not better off, as in the last cabinet quite the appearance that education cuts were politically motivated, especially critical ones social sciences and humanities took aim.
However, that is really a development of the last few decades. Perhaps it was once inaugurated by the memory of the truly courageous resistance against the occupier by a professor like Rudolph Cleveringa, who inspired many others with his 1940 protest speech against the dismissal of Jewish colleagues (and was himself immediately arrested by the Security Service).
But if we look back further, it is striking that scientists before that time did not place courage in the struggle with power per se. And yes, I do know the history of Hypatia, Copernicus, Galileo, Servetus, etc., who incurred the wrath of the official church authorities with their research and sometimes had to pay for it with the stake. But there was much more than that. Take the courageous scientists of the early modern period. Just before the nation state took over education and research policy, so from the 17th to the 19th century.
At that time, courage and resilience were not something of the individual, not something of or against the nation state (which did not yet exist or hardly existed), but of one’s own local community. Just like resilience. That was a quality that was locally anchored, in a specific community or guild, and where people had to get by without subsidies from above. Scientists too. They were courageous because they plowed ahead against superstition and narrow-minded traditions and had to invest endlessly in laborious experiments with their own money and time. And they didn’t do that for citations, likes or media attention. It was a service to science and community.
Take Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723). He worked, among other things, as a room keeper at the Delft town hall and also devoted all his time and energy to conducting microscopic research into blood and capillaries. He used himself and his family as guinea pigs for all kinds of unsavory experiments, and selflessly shared his microscopes and knowledge with the doctors in Delft. Or think of Menno van Coehoorn (1641-1704) and Simon Stevin (1548-1620). Van Coehoorn was one of the greatest military engineers of his time, and risked himself in the line of fire (and also fought) to see whether the fortifications he had developed were also valid. Stevin, among other things, laid the mathematical foundation for the inundation defenses, and was not afraid to (literally) take stock of the water level in the polder and help with the fortification of his university city of Leiden.
Courage was not always resistance against a higher authority, against a superior force of evildoers, against which you expressively expressed your integrity and pure principles. Again, sometimes that is necessary and courageous. But not always. Sometimes it is at least as courageous to really and concretely commit yourself to your own community without much ado. So keep plodding along.
And sometimes that recognition still comes. Because as a reward, the Delft Surgeons’ Guild invited him (free of charge, the other extras had to pay) to work on their painting, Dr.’s anatomy lesson Cornelis ‘s-Gravesande, to take a seat. There we see him to the right of the anatomist, with his hand over his heart. Van Leeuwenhoek probably wanted to show that he did his work with humility and honor to creature and community.