There are countries that want to steal Dutch knowledge, for example to strengthen their own armed forces and industry. But academics like to collaborate with colleagues from all over the world. Who can you trust, and with whom is it better to end the collaboration?
After four years, the [National Guideline on Knowledge Security](https://www.loketkennisveiligheid.nl/documenten/2026/06/04/nationale-leidraad-kennisveiligheid-2026) has been revised, intended to help researchers and administrators with thorny issues. The guideline is a joint policy document from, among others, the universities of applied sciences, research universities, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), research funder NWO, several ministries and central government agencies.
State threats
Academic freedom and openness are “important scientific core values”, the guideline states. “Knowledge security policy aims to protect these core values against state threats.”
New in the guideline is the acknowledgement that this creates a dilemma: “Security-enhancing measures can, however, also be detrimental to these core values.” To limit such drawbacks as much as possible, “a conscious and careful weighing of interests is required”.
In other words, freedom sometimes has to give way to security. This means researchers cannot simply collaborate and publish with colleagues from anywhere in the world. Ultimate responsibility for such collaborations lies with institutions’ executive boards.
Scrutiny
Other values can come under pressure too, such as inclusivity. Be careful, for instance, about casting suspicion on entire countries, warns the guideline, since this can lead to “prejudice, stigmatisation and discrimination”. The approach to knowledge security must be “country-neutral and non-discriminatory”.
Institutions must therefore prevent staff from viewing all students and researchers from, say, China or Iran with suspicion, now that cooperation with those countries is under close scrutiny. Foreign researchers are not always an extension of their regime. “Experience shows that it is not always easy for staff and students to make that distinction properly,” the guideline states.