Support scientists instead of criticising us
With his statement in NRC that Dutch universities are too preoccupied with themselves, NWO chairman Marcel Levi is contributing to mistrust in science, writes associate professor Jaap Kooijman. “Our scientists speak at public meetings, talk about their research on the radio and in podcasts, and write popular science articles.”
“American scientists are much better at explaining why science is important to society,” says Marcel Levi in his interview with NRC on 22 June 2025. It is a striking remark, made by the chairman of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), at a time when American confidence in scientific knowledge – both on the part of the government and public opinion – is alarmingly low. Fortunately, the situation in the Netherlands is not yet as serious as in the United States or Hungary, but science is also under attack here.
In December 2024, Geert Wilders, leader of the largest political party in the Netherlands, wrote on the American website Breitbart that Dutch universities are infected with the “woke mind virus” and that they “must be dismantled and rebuilt”. In April 2025, NSC Minister of Education Eppo Bruins suggested that universities are no longer a place “where you can debate with each other in a mature way based on content and facts” and therefore no longer serve as an “example for the rest of society”.
Outdated image
With his statement in the NRC interview that Dutch universities are too preoccupied with themselves, Marcel Levi, as chairman of the NWO, contributes to this mistrust. Moreover, it is simply not true. As director of a UvA research school with 130 staff members and 160 PhD students, I can reassure critics that we still debate openly and respectfully with each other, even on difficult topics such as Gaza.
We also believe it is important to share knowledge with the general public and we do so actively. Levi’s suggestion that it is “not considered chic at university to explain to the general public what you are doing” is an outdated view. Our scientists speak at public meetings, talk about their research on the radio and in podcasts, and write popular science articles in addition to their regular scientific work.
A familiar face
Levi says that when he appears on television, he is often asked: “Why are you on television again?”. The fact that our scientists are less frequently seen on talk shows than Levi is not because we look down on television. I know from my own experience, and also from many colleagues, that even if you get a call and have a preliminary interview with an editor, you still “fall by the wayside” because they are looking for strong opinions rather than scientific explanations, or because they ultimately prefer a “familiar face”.
What I find even worse is that Marcel Levi seems to be blind to the actual risks our scientists run when they participate in public debate, especially when they conduct research on “controversial” topics such as migration, right-wing extremism, the environment, ethnicity, gender and sexuality. Colleagues who speak publicly about these topics – based on their scientific expertise – quickly become the target of troll armies and online threats.
It is worrying that female and non-binary colleagues, as well as non-white colleagues, are particularly vulnerable to this. The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) rightly calls on scientific institutions in its report “Academic freedom in the Netherlands: response to current threats” that scientific institutions have a responsibility to “actively protect employees against external pressure, to address threats and to support employees who bring scientific knowledge to society and come under pressure in doing so”. This applies to my own research school, but also to the NWO.
Intimidation
It is worrying that Marcel Levi still fails to recognise that his public attack on our Leiden colleague Nadia Bouras, in which he unjustly accuses her of “anti-Semitism”, cannot be viewed separately from his position as NWO chair, is worrying, especially when you consider that Bouras was threatened and intimidated by Vizier Op Links in 2021 as a result of her scientific contribution to the public debate.
In the NRC interview, Marcel Levi says: “Yes, it was immediately dismissed as ‘NWO boss intimidates academic’. Come on, give me a break. It had nothing to do with her role as a scientist or with my role at NWO. She had an opinion, I had the opposite opinion.” But for scientists in the public debate, even when they speak “in a personal capacity”, this distinction between work and private life does not apply. Levi seems to forget that he has his place in the public debate not despite, but thanks to his position as NWO president.
It goes without saying that Dutch scientists must explain to the public why our work is important. And we are happy to do so. The reason for my appeal is the NRC interview with Marcel Levi, but it is not directed at him alone. Administrators and politicians responsible for scientific research and education, do not publicly criticise us, but contribute to a climate in which we can enthusiastically and safely communicate why science is important to our society.
Jaap Kooijman is associate professor of media studies and research director at the Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis (ASCA) at the UvA.
