Political scientist Alyt Damstra (41) is worried. She follows the news about the United States and sees how judges, scientists and media are put under pressure by populist politicians. “That situation cannot be compared with the Netherlands,” says the special professor at the University of Amsterdam. “But here too the relationships are shifting.”
There is a growing ‘science resistance’, Damstra said in her lecture in February when accepting the chair knowledge and strategic policy advice. She investigates how knowledge continues in policy. “I look at the relationship between science and politics, and in particular at advisory councils that are a connecting link between those two worlds.”
You also work for the Scientific Council for Government Policy, one of the advisory councils that your investigation is about. Does that go together?
“This chair is set in consultation with the WRR. It fits in closely with earlier research projects that I did at the university. Since my promotion in 2020, I have dealt with knowledge, and especially the resistance to it. Through digital technology we can inform ourselves day and night, the only border is our own attention span. And yet it doesn’t make us much wiser.
“In fact, we see that widely shared scientific insights against alternative facts. I investigated this with colleagues from various European universities Knowledge Resistance And the role that social media play in this. On a channel like X, everyone can send their own message into the world without editorial verification or journalistic intervention.
“At the WRR I worked in recent years on advice on media in our democracy. That advice, Attention to mediacame out in October. In this we argue for new media policy that connects more closely with the Door Big Tech dominated media system. That environment must be better regulated and that is also possible, both at European and national level. As a professor, I will now look at the functioning of advisory councils within the context of science resistance. Everything comes together. “
The message that Minister Faber promoted is that advice is not important but very time -consuming
In your inaugural lecture you characterized the work that scientific advisory councils do as ‘balance art’. What makes their work difficult?
“Yes, the trick is to operate independently but to come up with advice that meets the questions that live with politicians and policy makers. This is required again and we see more and more often that it is not self -evident. That makes that balance more difficult.
“Think of what happened to the advice of the Council of State about the asylum plans of Minister Faber. The Council of State stated that the minister should not submit her legislative proposals to the House of Representatives, because they were not prepared carefully enough. The leader of the largest government party, the PVV, with: the minister does not need to care about those unelected bureaucrats. That brings the Council of State to a precarious position. There is a risk that foundations of our democratic constitutional state will become politicized, as we also see in science.
“What is also important: the Migration Advisory Board was not asked for advice by the minister, while that council does have that legal task. The minister had only given a limited number of organizations the opportunity to respond to her asylum plans, and that was also necessary within a week. The message that Faber carried out is that advice is not important but very time -consuming. ”
Read also
Elusive for its officials, unreachable for the outside world: Minister Faber operates ‘completely unusual’
How problematic is it when policy makers no longer care about advisory councils?
“Society stands for enormous tasks, scientific knowledge is indispensable for tackling it. Advisory councils are important because they can convert that knowledge into input for policy. At the same time, it should never be the case that advisory councils determine the policy. It is up to politics to make choices, to make the trade -off between interests and values.
“During the Coronacrisis we saw that the advice of the Outbreak Management Team became leading and political weighing of interests disappeared into the background. As a result, science came under fire. “
Is the position of advisory councils permanently damaged as a result?
“Corona has been a catalyst for distrust of scientific institutions. Especially on issues that affect society, where people stand opposite each other – and there are more and more, think of nitrogen, migration, vaccination – you can see that science is withdrawn the political battlefield.
“And no matter how great the scientific consensus is, there are always alternative views online that say that things are different. Handy use is made of the fact that scientific knowledge is never finished. The uncertainty that is inherent in scientific research then forms a usable hook for doubt.
“Research and advice can also be used to save time. Time when no difficult political decision has to be taken yet. The RIVM has been pointing to a connection between goat farms and lung diseases for more than ten years. The government is now calling on the Health Council to investigate again how this works, this advice should then be leading. While the urgent advice to greatly reduce the use of pesticides, from the same Health Council, was ignored by the government. That suggests that an advice mainly counts in politically desired conclusions. “
Populist politics has a difficult relationship with science, journalism and case law
How can knowledge institutions and advisory councils stand out against that political pressure?
“The trick is to be guiding without making politics, no matter how polarized the environment is. Politics must remain politics and science science. Advisory councils have a connecting role in this. They must unlock knowledge and convert them into action perspective.
“The problem is that on the political side there must also be admissibility for those advice. And that is not always there, certainly not on the most politized files. The populist politics working on a global advance usually has a difficult relationship with science, journalism and case law. These politicians are incredibly good at questioning the integrity of those truthful institutions. And doubt is a powerful weapon. It is very difficult to defend yourself against the reproach that you are biased or biased. “
Do you see a solution?
“There are other ways to realize knowledge of knowledge. If the government is inadmissible, a report can still be of great value for the field, for departments or for society as a whole. You have many ways in which you can bring your message into the world. You might have to become more resourceful in that.
“I also found it very strong what the Migration Advisory Council did in December. He brought out a letter to Minister Faber with the call in order not to put the expertise of advisory bodies aside. And they then published their advice.
“Advisory councils must remain role -resistant and not sit on the politician’s chair. But at the same time they must continue to analyze and identify powerfully, especially with growing resistance. And therefore continue to give the best possible advice. “