A new Knowledge Security policy is being imposed on the Dutch universities by the government without prior discussion. I became aware of the situation through a Leiden Faculty of Science policy note, that was distributed to all scientific staff in our department about three weeks ago. It has generated considerable disquiet among several colleagues.

The crux of the policy is that in future there will be a discriminatory screening process enforced throughout the Faculty. This will be applied when inviting guests or making appointments of colleagues that work in 4 designated "high-risk" countries (Russia, China, North Korea and Iran) and for formal visits of staff to institutes in these countries.

Versions of the Knowledge Security policy is being enforced at all Dutch universities in response to pressure from on-high. The national policy is being set up and managed by a partnership of three Ministries. A costly machine of civil servants has already been recruited and employed to enforce the policies, as demonstrated by the launch of an extensive new government "Kennisveiligheid loket".

Cold War

At about the same time as our Faculty policy note was issued, the KNAW produced a position paper criticising the government’s policy and warning about its discriminatory nature. Apparently, further draconian measures are in preparation by legislators and enshrined in a proposed law for parliament. Such screening procedures are extreme and were not practised in Dutch universities, even at the height of the Cold War.

There are several fundamental reasons for opposing it. First, such a list of high-risk countries is discriminatory and implies that we should not trust colleagues from such countries. Even more worrying, the policy could result in all staff and students with a Chinese or East Asian appearance to be viewed suspiciously. Have lessons learned about unintentional discrimination from the recent child benefits scandal been forgotten already?

Secondly, setting a country as high-risk implies that they are potential enemies. It contributes to the accelerating ominous slide of the world into conflicting international blocks and an eventual world war! Thirdly, the designation of countries on the high-risk list is always dependent on the political taste of the ministries. Now they are Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. What about Belarus? Will the USA be designated as “high-risk” if Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election?

Counterproductive

I believe that it is in the interest of the Netherlands for students and scientists from all countries to visit and sample how we live, rather than to be treated as our potential enemies. Just as in the case of the Barenboim-Said Israeli-Palestine "West-Eastern Divan Orchestra", informal "science diplomacy" between academics have frequently helped develop relations and build bridges between countries before political contacts were possible.

In my own discipline of astronomy, setting up radio interferometers (with atomic clocks !!) between the USA and the USSR in the 1960s, visits to China during the Cultural Revolution and securing the admission of China and North Korea to the International Astronomical Union were actions that stimulated contacts with the people of these countries before political "thaws" occurred. Attempts to isolate countries academically are usually counterproductive.

Besides bringing discrimination into our university, applying a blanket policy throughout the faculty and university based on country will be highly ineffective. Very little of our research is secret. Why not avoid any discrimination by just restricting access to the small number of sensitive research areas involved? In any case “high-risk countries" can easily recruit and pay spies from other countries to act on their behalf.

So devising and implementing individual faculty and university knowledge security policies is a waste of considerable time and effort that could be better spent on useful activities. The cost of the new "kennisveiligheid"-industry (people-hours, resources and meetings) is considerable and should be made transparent and open to the public. The future expenditure needed for the enhanced screening and other processes required by the proposed new law will be even larger!

Discriminatory & dangerous

Finally, is it is a coincidence that the present designated list of high-risk countries coincides with those for which the Netherlands recently imposed export restrictions on ASML under severe pressure from the American government? I suspect that the knowledge security industry may be merely costly “window-dressing”, set up by the government to demonstrate to the USA that the Netherlands is among the most loyal of their allies.

In short, the new policy is discriminatory, dangerous, ineffective, bureaucratic and a waste of considerable funds that could be better spent on research, education or on one of our acute societal needs. I suggest that the Netherlands is stumbling into this "kennisveiligheid" quagmire without proper thought or discussion and I urge the universities to resist it.

George Miley is Emeritus Professor of Astronomy, Leiden University, ex-President of the International Astronomical Union and was the first astronomer to visit China at the end of the Cultural Revolution