Defence in science is indefensible
The government is set to spend billions on defence. Higher education will also be required to contribute to knowledge and research in the field of defence. Zep van de Visse is critical. “Any proposal for defence-related research that comes to the table must be made public in advance to the academic community with an independent ethical review.”
A few weeks ago, there was an uncomfortable silence in the glass-walled meeting room of the Bushuis. Seated at the table were our faculty’s research director, all the directors of the research institutes and two student council members. The question hanging in the air was as simple as it was overwhelming: the Ministry of Defence is making a large sum of money available for the development of defence-related knowledge and research at Dutch universities, including the UvA. As a university, do we accept that money or do we keep our hands off it?
The documents that had been sent out in advance did nothing to make that dilemma any less subtle. The report Knowledge Offensive for Defence (in Dutch) by the Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (AWTI), drafted in part by our new, undemocratically appointed future President of the Board Vinod Subramaniam, explicitly calls for “the entire knowledge ecosystem” to be mobilised for defence research and advises educational and knowledge institutions to make “mutual agreements” on sustainable (long-term) cooperation with the Ministry of Defence. The tone is businesslike and strategic: more government control, more public-private cooperation, more bottom-up scouting for knowledge with defence potential. In addition, the document hinted at creating a “cultural change”, or in other words: universities are too critical and need to be persuaded top-down to engage in defence research.
Economic growth
At the same time, the Wennink report (in Dutch), drawn up by CEOs, casts another shadow over the government's boardroom tables. The premise of the report: the Dutch economy is going to shrink. The report identifies “security and resilience” as one of the four areas in which the Netherlands must invest in order to secure economic growth. The argument is clear: we must invest in defence. Not for security, but for economic growth. The big capitalists of the Netherlands want us to build a war economy so that we do not have to tax the rich to maintain the public sector.
Anyone who compares these two documents will see a dangerous similarity. The AWTI advocates involving universities in defence-related research and explicitly mentions topics such as AI, sensing and human-robot interaction, areas in which faculties such as ours excel. The Wennink analysis legitimises investments in those same domains as necessary for productivity growth and economic resilience. Put those two policy lines together and what you get is that universities will enable military technology and ensure that the Netherlands can become filthy rich in the coming war over the crumbling American empire.
Legitimate
Let me immediately dispel one argument for militarisation: security is a legitimate subject for research. The whole of the Netherlands has an interest in knowledge about cybersecurity, humanitarian aid, or the social effects of disinformation. The question is, however, how honest is the Ministry of Defence in its request? The rhetoric of “resilience” and mobilisation of “the whole of society” can quickly turn into operational cooperation focused on mass influencing of citizens, surveillance of peace activists, and “early warning” systems against the dissemination of information that counteracts the objectives of the Ministry of Defence.
These are not neutral instruments when they are used to suppress civil criticism or delegitimise political opponents. Universities that cooperate with such systems imperceptibly shift from being “undesirably critical” to “actively instrumental”. This is not an abstract moral point, but directly affects the public task of universities to protect independent and critical thinking. Academic freedom is not protected with weapons, but with independence.
Politically and economically, this combination also makes sense for policymakers: investment in defence creates jobs and productivity data and fits into a broader investment agenda to stimulate growth. The Wennink report does not say that universities should be used as suppliers of war technology, but it does construct a policy framework that legitimises investments in “security and resilience” as economically necessary. Collaboration between universities, businesses and the Ministry of Defence fits perfectly into such a growth trajectory.
If this is already an issue within the humanities, I dare not imagine what might be happening at Science Park at the moment, and I hope that at least there, the student council is involved in the decision-making process.
Transparency
What should we do? My proposal is urgent and concrete: preserve the independence of our academic work and organise that independence publicly and visibly. That means three things. First: transparency and democratic scrutiny. Any proposal for defence-related research that comes up within the university must be made public in advance to the academic community, with independent ethical review and input from students and staff.
Secondly: binding guarantees on research applications. We must demand contract clauses that protect public applications and fundamental research from direct military exploitation or secrecy that undermines scientific integrity. Where such guarantees are not in place, there should be no cooperation.
Thirdly: a collective refusal of all contracts with the Ministry of Defence. If universities are included in large-scale strategies that primarily serve as economic-military instruments, opposition is legitimate. Students, lecturers and research groups can and must unite. Boycotting the military is a legitimate tool for defending academic freedom.
So: print it out and pin it on every notice board, let your lecturers know, send it by email to the works council, the research institutes and the Executive Board: Boycott the war! Do not accept research assignments from the Ministry of Defence!
Money
Finally: money is persuasive. But academic value is more persuasive. No one becomes wiser by researching how to kill other people more efficiently. What does move us forward is critical thinking, sharp ethical reflection, and research that protects people – wherever they live. If our faculty sacrifices that for a bag of money, we lose something that is more difficult to buy back than a grant, namely trust. Boycott the war, and build on knowledge that truly strengthens our democracy and human dignity!
In addition, researchers and professors, speak out! If scientists continue to remain silent for fear of being politically controversial, the Netherlands will forever continue to elect cabinets that are not afraid of fact-free politics that value reports from billionaires more than those from researchers. Think of it as reverse mutually assured destruction: if no one speaks out, we will all slowly be cut back.
Zep van de Visse is a student of political science and philosophy and a member of the FGw student council. He is a candidate for Bij1 in Amsterdam Nieuw-West in the upcoming municipal elections.
