Some countries seek to steal Dutch knowledge to strengthen, for example, their militaries and industries. At the same time, scientists value collaborating with colleagues from around the world. Who can you trust, and with whom is it better to end a collaboration?

After four years, the National Knowledge Security Guidelines have been revised to help researchers and university administrators navigate such difficult questions. The guidelines are a joint initiative of, among others, universities of applied sciences, research universities, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), research funder NWO, several ministries, and other Dutch government agencies.

State threats

Academic freedom and openness are “important core values of science,” the guidelines state. “Knowledge security policies aim to protect these core values from state threats.”

New to the guidelines is the recognition that this creates a dilemma: “Security measures themselves can, however, also have adverse effects on these core values.” To minimize those adverse effects, “a deliberate and careful balancing of interests is needed.”

In other words, sometimes freedom has to give way to security. Researchers cannot always freely collaborate and publish with colleagues from around the world. Ultimately, responsibility for such collaborations lies with the leadership of the institutions.

Countries

Other values can also come under pressure, including inclusivity. For example, the guidelines caution against treating entire countries with suspicion, as this can lead to “prejudice, stigmatization and discrimination.” The approach to knowledge security should be “country-neutral and non-discriminatory.”

Institutions should therefore prevent their staff from viewing all students and researchers from countries such as China or Iran with suspicion, now that collaboration with those countries is under increased scrutiny. Foreign researchers are not necessarily extensions of their governments. “Experience shows that it is not always easy for staff and students to make that distinction,” the guidelines state.

Tone

The tone of the guidelines is somewhat different from that of the 2022 version. At the time, for example, there was a warning that the measures should not “go too far.” That wording has disappeared from the revised version.

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