Dutch higher education institutions possess expertise and research knowledge that are also of great interest to other countries. This entails risks, as some countries actively seek to steal knowledge and expertise that can be used to strengthen their own regimes.
In 2022, then-education minister Robbert Dijkgraaf therefore announced plans to screen researchers and Master’s students in ‘sensitive’ fields. The proposal drew considerable criticism, particularly from universities, which feared it could undermine the Netherlands’ appeal to talented students and researchers from abroad.
However, in a letter to the House of Representatives in early June, Letschert wrote that a screening law of this scope and breadth was “not feasible”. Instead, she has proposed a scaled-back screening alternative and will examine whether this can be implemented.
Making choices
With more limited screening, choices will have to be made, says Letschert. The list of sensitive technologies will need to be shortened, but she can’t yet say which subject areas will continue to be covered.
In addition, she wants to reduce the number of people subject to screening. Under the original proposal, both researchers and Master’s students would be screened. The minister is now considering exempting students and screening researchers only.
Letschert also wants to avoid higher education institutions being subject to stricter requirements than companies in future. According to the minister, there should be a level playing field, since sensitive knowledge is not confined to higher education institutions but is also found among companies. She wants to ensure that the rules of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and those of the Ministry of Economic Affairs are aligned.
Significant costs
In a response, the universities write that they also understand the importance of knowledge security. Despite the cutbacks, universities have invested heavily in the protection of sensitive knowledge, they emphasise.
However, not all universities face the same level of risk, emphasises umbrella organisation Universities of the Netherlands (UNL). A one-size-fits-all approach would therefore be inappropriate. UNL also points to the considerable costs of knowledge security.
Universities mainly want to avoid burdensome rules that are difficult to put into practice. They would prefer to take responsibility themselves for protecting sensitive knowledge.
At the same time, they are calling for more clarity on dual-use research, which can have both civilian and military applications. The development of drone technology is one example.
The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) and the Dutch Research Council (NWO) have responded positively to the minister’s plan to limit the scope of screening. However, they also warn of potential risks to academic freedom, fearing that screening requirements could inadvertently lead to discrimination.
Other options
In addition to scaled-back screening, the minister is exploring other options. One possibility is to require knowledge institutions to implement their own access policies, rather than relying on central government screening, although this idea requires further study.
Letschert hopes to be able to inform the House of Representatives about the feasibility of a more limited screening regime in spring 2027. A total of 100 million euros has been allocated to safeguard knowledge security.