Shall I write something here about the ministers who said this week that they supported the scientists who wrote a letter? de Volkskrant published to say that FVD MPs should not say that RIVM director Jaap van Dissel is “corrupt and impressionable”?
I can’t bring myself to do it. Ever since Fortuyn, I’ve found it such a soporific debate. The FVD bastard in question was cut off by the neutral Speaker of the House in the person of PVV MP Martin Bosma, whose own party did for years groundbreaking work in what is permissible in the House of Representatives. Wilders called the Chamber a fake parliament, the judges fake judges, his trial a mock trial and journalists scum off the ledge. But he becomes a bit jaded and the young dogs of FVD take over from him. They reach new lows in directly attacking the institutions that make the free democratic constitutional state possible: the judiciary, the press and science. Their style is more personal, more insidious, they threaten to use ‘tribunals’. The videos of the latest riots appear on social media as a kind of fatwa, a secret call for the online FVD vigilante group to virtually go wild.
Shall I make a public confession here too? It’s all terrible. I find it unacceptable that scientists are being threatened. It should never be part of a scientist’s work. Just never.
Having said that, I saw the critical interrogation of ministerial scientists Dijkgraaf (OCW, D66) and Kuipers (VWS, D66), who On 1 and Beau to speak shame about it, again fall seriously short. Dijkgraaf pointed out to the MPs their exemplary role for society. I found it almost touching; in The Hague, since 2016, parliamentary debates have just not been accompanied by a viewing guide advice 12+ because of the vulgar bickering. Which exemplary function is Dijkgraaf referring to exactly? An example of how we mainly not have to interact with each other?
The Chamber as the representative of an increasingly agitated society, which is less and less able to control its anger and frustration.
But once again the obligatory nagging about the ‘tone’ and the ‘demeanor’ made a conversation about the underlying issue impossible. Once again, the two ministers were allowed to defend and praise science without a critical question about it. Because why can’t a member of parliament say that Van Dissel can be influenced? Scientists are notoriously impressionable; there are always a few in the countless research institutes and think tanks that dutifully jump through the hoops of the lender. The scientific method is extremely fragile and easy to manipulate. From the topic you are researching, to the question you ask about it, the method you choose, the statistic you use, and the conclusion you draw. Science can be put into all kinds of words and its credibility can easily be abused.
The Ministry of Health has proven this conclusively in recent months. First, it politicized science by shifting all decisions onto the scientists (“the OMT is leading”). In doing so, it suggested that science not only generates research results, but also knows which corona measures should follow. Secondly, RIVM is funded by the government, and the research questions at hand more often than not come from the government. It was the Ministry of Health that broke the law and adjusted OMT advice and minutes†
Wouldn’t it be really nice if the editors of Beau and the presenter himself, when interviewing Minister Kuipers, does not just sit around and rant about inappropriate FVD people who scold scientists (called ‘fact tellers’ at the table), but simply asks what is behind the attack on Van Dissel.
The question is not or science can be influenced, but Who exerts influence. In this case, it was the Ministry of Health’s fault that the scientists were not kept out of the loop.
Rosanne Hertzberger is a microbiologist.
A version of this article also appeared in the newspaper of June 4, 2022