Funding restrictions, knowledge security measures and polarisation, both within academia and in society more broadly, are all contributing to increased pressure on academic freedom in the Netherlands, according to a

The??conducted the research after?the country performed poorly?in the European Parliament¡¯s 2024 Academic Freedom Monitor, scoring below the European Union average?alongside Austria, Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania, Croatia, Hungary, Greece and Poland after?¡°significant declines¡± between 2013 and 2023.

¡°It¡¯s a complex, multi-dimensional problem,¡± Andr¨¦ Nollkaemper, chair of the KNAW Committee on Freedom of Science, told Times Higher Education. ¡°We can¡¯t point to a single cause, such as governmental intervention restricting academic freedom. Rather, it¡¯s the cumulative effect of a number of factors.¡±

One such factor, Nollkaemper said, is the ¡°steering of funding, so the research is no longer curiosity driven, but is determined by particular themes and particular external funders¡±. In the report, KNAW calls on the Dutch government ¡°to ensure there is sufficient scope for curiosity-driven research¡±, particularly amid the dramatic recent cuts made to higher education and research budgets. ?

ÍøÆØÃÅ

¡°So much research funding that originally used to go to universities directly is now channelled through other organisations like the National Research Council, so the availability of funding is limited to particular themes,¡± said Nollkaemper. ¡°We¡¯re not necessarily opposed to those sort of calls ¨C we do recognise the importance of [tackling] societal challenges ¨C but it is important to preserve the space for research that is driven by the curiosity of researchers.¡±

The recent ¡°abrupt, sudden¡± budget cuts may adversely impact academic freedom, Nollkaemper said, with affected researchers facing ¡°immense pressure to find alternative sources of funding¡±. More problematic, however, is ¡°the sustained structural pressure¡± from continued underfunding, forcing institutions to consistently rely on external funding that may impose conditions on research.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

Restrictions on English-language teaching, which could be introduced under the proposed ¡°internationalisation in balance¡± bill, could also be problematic, KNAW warns, urging the government ¡°to continue to allow universities to have the final say in determining which language should be used in academic programmes¡±.

Nollkaemper pointed to ¡°polarisation¡± as another factor restricting academic freedom, telling THE, ¡°significant numbers of researchers do not feel free to share and distribute the findings of academic research because of intimidation¡±, in particular online.

That?polarisation became particularly problematic during the Covid pandemic as researchers faced ¡°hugely intimidating critique¡±, he noted, with climate and the Israel-Gaza war among the current subjects prompting academics to self-censor.

KNAW called on the government to regulate social media alongside other measures to protect academics from ¡°external pressure¡±, further appealing to research institutions to protect and support their employees.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

The academy also described ¡°tensions within the academic community¡± regarding polarising topics, calling on institutions to ¡°enshrine academic freedom within their culture and policies¡± and urging researchers ¡°to respect each other¡¯s academic freedom¡±.

Researchers should ¡°make clear in what capacity¡± they are speaking when communicating with the public, Nollkaemper said, ¡°in order to preserve trust in academic research¡±.

A further potential threat to the freedom of research, the KNAW report notes, concerns the government¡¯s approach to knowledge security. Last month, education and science minister Eppo Bruins submitted a bill that would require all researchers and master¡¯s students to be screened before they can work on ¡°sensitive knowledge or technology¡±, a proposal that sector leaders have described as ¡°disproportionate¡±.

KNAW called for knowledge security measures?to be adopted ¡°only after careful consideration of all the interests involved, based on a case-by-case approach, and underpinned by the principles of open scientific/scholarly exchange, academic freedom and institutional autonomy¡±.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

¡°Academic freedom is not an absolute interest that trumps everything else,¡± said Nollkaemper. ¡°But it¡¯s a matter of striking a balance.¡± Restrictions on international collaborations and other potential measures should not be ¡°disproportionate to the risk or the threats¡±, he stressed.

emily.dixon@timeshighereducation.com