Concerns about academic freedom have increased since a right-wing government took office in 2024. I understand that. I have experienced firsthand that there are politicians and parties who have an unvarnished opinion about certain sciences, and who believe that politics should interfere with them. I have always refused to go along with that.
There are scientists who also worry about the restriction of academic freedom inside. Not everyone recognizes this concern, but there are scientists who do not air their opinions and findings out loud because they know that the conclusions are sensitive within the academic community. When then MPs Karin Straus and Pieter Duisenberg politically denounced this form of possible self-censorship for the first time in 2017 through a motion, there was great outrage in the academy. The KNAW responded in a report resolutely: “There are no signals that there is structural self-censorship and limitation of diversity of perspectives in science in the Netherlands.”
The KNAW’s response calmed the discussion that had started. When VVD MP Hatte van der Woude submitted such a motion again in 2021, the minister even had to be recalled to implement the adopted motion. Ultimately, an external research agency was brought in to conduct the research.
The conclusion of an external report in 2023 was that there are “significant minorities” of researchers, teachers and students who feel limited in speech and behavior. After all the outrage and delay on the subject, you would think this report would come as a bombshell. But it has received surprisingly little attention and seems to have been forgotten.
Only in 2025, after the Schoof cabinet took office, did the KNAW announce that academic freedom in the Netherlands is under pressure. But not because of the limitations experienced by researchers, teachers and students. No, the pressure would mainly be the result of cutbacks, intimidation and new bills. This report once again warns of pressure from outside, not from within. The KNAW still does not seem to recognize that difference.
The recent call by the KNAW board to ban Israeli scientists from European collaborative projects seems to have stirred something up. This call, with which the KNAW consciously draws a political discussion into science, has led to several scientists within their university and via social media taking the courage to step forward and declare that they have felt limited in their expressions for some time due to group pressure from within: a differing opinion is not acceptable.
It is good that this polarized topic contributes to the fact that the “significant minorities”, as they were called in the 2023 research report, now appear to be becoming vocal. In addition to whether or not to collaborate with certain countries, this may concern sensitive social topics such as research into transgender care for minors or the effects of migration. Perhaps this can herald the start of the conversation that Straus, Duisenberg and Van der Woude tried to open in 2017 and 2021: are scientists really free to express themselves, free to research what they want and with whom they want?
The only way to prevent science from becoming a plaything of politics is to guarantee that science from within gives space to all insights, opinions, topics and collaborations to achieve robust knowledge. Only if science itself is free of politics can the attack of politics on academic freedom be repelled.
I therefore argue for radical academic freedom. Just as there is a separation between church and state in the Netherlands, there must also be a radical separation between science and politics. The robust scientific method leaves no room for political activism. A personal opinion or preference may well influence the chosen research topic, the choice of words in publication, or which results you want to emphasize. But where personal coloring is added, it should also be part of the scientific discourse. And criticism of this from those who think differently is justified, even necessary.
Should academic freedom be better guaranteed legally? In my opinion not. Academic freedom is enshrined in Dutch law and in the Charter of the EU. Both do not define what academic freedom is – and leave it that way. Because in a political discussion about this, academic freedom is in danger of being hijacked, because there are parties that think they would benefit from it. This would really endanger academic freedom. Only science itself can prevent academic freedom from being politically hijacked, by working on freedom from within: give space to all voices and opinions, without limitations. Fight with words and arguments and then shake hands collegially. That’s how science works.
NEW: Give this item as a gift
As an NRC subscriber you can subscribe every month 10 items give as a gift to someone without an NRC subscription. The recipient can read the article directly, without a paywall.
Why you can trust NRC