The Cambridge Dictionary defines “institute” as “… an organization whose purpose is to advance the study of a particular subject.” In many universities around the world and in The Netherlands, research institutes symbolize long term anchors of the scientific and societal ambition of the universities. 

Think, for example, of the Donder’s institute at Radboud University or the Anton Pannekoek Institute at UvA—who both recently celebrated their 100th anniversary. 

In the past six months, the TU/e has announced that two of its four institutes should be closed. One, to be replaced by a new, bigger institute with the same name (Casimir), and the other is to be disseminated across the entire university (EAISI). 

One would imagine that a university institute is an important part of its legacy and outreach. If so, how come the TU/e institutes are so short-lived? 

The research at the TU/e is taking place at the level of the departments. The TU/e Institutes have been created to promote visibility of our academic work, but are not rich enough to fund science or to appoint scientists. The time it takes to build a reputation for an institute is long (at least 5 years but often much longer). 

The TU/e has decided in the 2010’s and early 2020’s to create strong thematic institutes in the areas of: materials (ICMS), energy (EIRES), AI (EAISI) and quantum and photonics (EHCI). In the institutional plans, these institutes were supposed to lead the way into a future of cutting-edge research in their respective fields. 

Recently, the TU/e has published its new institutional plan. While the topics covered by the above-mentioned institutes are included in the plan, the role of the institutes is much less clear. Moreover, for some institutes 2025 and early 2026 meant that their very existence was questioned. 

The EHCI was closed down to make way for a newer and bigger Casimir institute, while EAISI was asked to “find a way” to integrate itself into the broader TU/e research landscape. 

If institutes are important and long-lasting, needing time to establish themselves, why is the TU/e so quick to close or replace two of the four existing institutes? Have they failed to deliver on their promise? Has the scientific domain underpinning them become obsolete or lost it funding appeal? Or maybe there are other motivations behind their closure?

Fashions in science are almost as fleeting as those on the high street. When a certain topic has moved into industry or has been proven to be a dead-end, it is quickly abandoned. Not because the scientific questions are no longer interesting and challenging, but more often than not, because the funding has dried up. 

In the case of the institutes in question, there is no doubt that the research themes they represent are valid and active. Yet, they were disbanded.

While abandoning institutes when their topic becomes obsolete is obviously a good thing, the fact that the closure of the institutes in question comes so soon after their establishment does raise questions. 

What can we learn from this? What process should we follow before establishing an institute to ensure its long-term success? If we want to give our institutes a fighting chance to grow and become internationally acclaimed organisations, maybe we should put more work into the preparation phase and give them a mandate to operate for a longer period before pulling the plug? 

I believe these measures will serve the TU/e community and the image and international visibility of TU/e better in the long run.

Oded Raz is Professor of Photonics at TU/e and represents the staff faction PUC in the University Council. The views expressed in this column are his own.

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