The new process was developed by a working group led by TU/e emeritus professor Niek Lopes Cardozo. From now on, all collaborations will undergo screening; only the most sensitive cases will be reviewed separately by the Committee for Responsible Collaborations. The committee will analyze risks, moral dilemmas, and the university’s interests.

Based on the committee’s analysis and the outcome of the moral deliberation process, the Executive Board will make the final decision.

“It is important that we scrutinize our collaborations more thoroughly, but at the same time we must keep in mind that collaborations are vital to the university,” said Koen Janssen, President of the Executive Board, in an article published on the university’s website. “We highly appreciate the extremely thorough approach taken by Niek and his team. The result provides an excellent foundation for the Committee’s work, without placing excessive burden on the organization.”

Ongoing criticism

The new method is a response to ongoing criticism of sensitive collaborations, both from society at large and from within the university community, as well as a growing demand for clear ethical guidelines.

In recent years, TU/e has repeatedly come under scrutiny for collaborations perceived to conflict with societal and ethical values. These have ranged from research projects involving Israeli partners and defense-related technologies to ties with companies contributing to the climate crisis.

Chairperson sought

In August of last year, Lopes Cardozo was given six months to develop a framework for evaluating sensitive collaborations. The advisory report he produced was submitted in early December and has since been discussed in various university bodies. His proposal adopts a broad approach, assessing not only sensitive collaborations but all collaborations.

A secretary has already been appointed: researcher and policy advisor Andrea Kis. She is currently overseeing the implementation of the plan. One of the next steps will be recruiting members for the Moral Deliberation Panel. “It should be a representative reflection of our community, both in terms of demographics and in terms of people’s roles within the university,” Kis said. “Participants may be students, researchers, or support staff. Ultimately, we want the moral deliberation panel to represent our community as broadly as possible.”

No fixed ethical yardstick

With this process, the university has deliberately chosen not to use a fixed ethical framework against which all sensitive collaborations are measured. Instead, each case will be evaluated individually and documented in a case file. Ethical guidelines will thus develop gradually, based on previous decisions, allowing them to evolve alongside societal developments.

TU/e uses several criteria to determine whether a collaboration should be considered sensitive. This includes cases involving national or international restrictions on a country, for example in the area of knowledge security. Collaborations that may be linked to systematic and severe human rights violations also fall into this category, as do projects that conflict with TU/e’s core values.

Collaborations with the Ministry of Defence are automatically classified as sensitive. At the same time, a separate assessment procedure is being developed for these projects because they involve “a large flow of mostly small-scale projects,” according to the report. That procedure is still under development.

“Stress test”

Both within and outside the university community, criticism has been directed at TU/e’s collaborations with Israeli organizations. The new assessment process was not designed specifically for these partnerships, Lopes Cardozo writes in his report. However, they were used as a “stress test” for the new framework. Once the committee and the Moral Deliberation Panel are operational, collaborations involving Israeli partners will be evaluated according to this procedure.

The protests organized by pro-Palestinian activists in recent years, including the recent occupation of the Nanolab roof, have focused primarily on Horizon projects—research programs funded by the European Commission. In a policy document published in June last year, these collaborations were excluded from the committee’s mandate. Under the new plan, Horizon projects will be evaluated through the same process as all other collaborations.

Not complex

When assessing a sensitive collaboration, moral objections will be weighed against the university’s interests. For example, terminating certain collaborations, such as Horizon projects, may result in financial penalties. Ending partnerships may also negatively affect educational and research opportunities at the university. Potential benefits, such as knowledge exchange, will also be taken into account.

“The university’s interests also carry their own moral value,” Lopes Cardozo said. “An issue may be morally right or wrong, but that still needs to be balanced against the interests of the university.”

He summarizes it in a single sentence: “Moral dilemmas are usually not complex—they are uncomfortable.”

As a result, a sensitive collaboration may still be allowed to continue despite moral concerns. In such cases, measures will need to be taken to mitigate the associated risks.

Until then

Until the Moral Deliberation and the Committee for Responsible Collaborations have been established, all project proposals will be submitted to faculty boards. Decisions on high-risk contract research projects (so-called agreement-based collaborations) will be put on hold until the new process is in place. All defense-related collaborations will continue to be reviewed by the existing ad hoc committee.

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