The university feels responsible for contributing to the security of the Netherlands. With that message, Koen Janssen, President of the Executive Board, opened the first university-wide information session on resilience and security, which largely revolved around working with Defence. Earlier, Susan Hommerson of General Affairs and Geert-Jan van Houtum (on the main photo), dean of the Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, had already given a similar presentation at several departments, aimed at academic staff.

Attendance was low at the session, which took place on Tuesday afternoon in the Senaatszaal of the Auditorium. Only around thirty people showed up. The small turnout may have benefited the discussion afterward, though, as many participants shared their views. Janssen had explicitly encouraged this at the start: “We want to know what you think.”

Minor

A few questions were raised during the presentation itself. For instance, whether it is even possible to draw a clear line between research that is or is not related to Defence. And whether Defence would, in the future, have any say in which partners the university may or may not collaborate with. The answer to that was no.

Asked what they would think about a potential minor at the university on the topic of Defence, some doubts emerged: would students—who often already live far from home and are vulnerable—become even more vulnerable if they were to become potential targets? And shouldn’t the learning objectives of the university, rather than the wishes of an external party, be the basis for a minor? In response to the latter question, Van Houtum explained that it would be up to the university itself to determine the theoretical framework for the courses of any potential minor.

Defensive or offensive

Aside from those concerns, the attendees generally seemed open to contributing to Dutch resilience. Some mentioned that several universities in Europe are already working on this topic and asked whether joining forces might be an option. In response to two hypotheses presented to the audience, multiple people indicated that, given geopolitical tensions and ongoing wars, they believe it is necessary for the university to take responsibility.

For these hypotheses, the moderator asked participants to stand up and move to one side of the room or the other to show whether they agreed or disagreed. The first hypothesis focused on defensive versus offensive use: should the university engage only in research that is purely defensive, or may it also be offensive? Opinions appeared divided; each side counted roughly the same number of people, with a few participants standing somewhere in the middle. “If I look purely at ethical considerations, I’d say only defensive, but in practical terms, offensive research might also be acceptable,” one participant explained. In his view, universities should aim to improve people’s lives and society, and offensive systems do not contribute to that.

Research intended for defensive purposes that could also be turned into offensive applications was seen as acceptable by many. At the same time, attendees agreed that drawing the line between what is offensive and defensive is extremely difficult. “But technology that is truly designed for offensive use — for killing and destruction — we should absolutely not contribute to.” Hommerson agreed. However, she added that if it is our soldiers who have to go to the front, she would want them to be well equipped to protect themselves. Whatever the choice ends up being, it must be clear which type of technology the university supports, another participant noted.

Open science

Interestingly, for the next hypothesis—whether Resilience & Security is more important than open science—almost everyone, apart from a few individuals, moved to the same side of the room. For them, open science was clearly more important. One participant, who initially stood on that side as well, walked to the other side of the room, seemingly to make a point. When given the floor, he explained: “Looking at this information session and hearing what people are saying, the reality seems to be that resilience and security are considered more important.” But if open science is truly as important as everyone claims, he argued, the university should not engage in this type of research.

According to some, open science and focusing on resilience and security do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. Open science could still be maintained for certain Defence-related research, for example in more fundamental projects. And it could be possible to withhold only certain specific details in certain cases. Still, open science remains a high priority for many—not only because it is a core value within academia, but also because it fosters trust among the public. “That trust is at stake if you don’t uphold open science.”

This article was translated using AI-assisted tools and reviewed by an editor.