nos.nl
Hundreds of International Research Collaborations Blocked in the Netherlands Over Security Concerns
Dutch universities have blocked hundreds of international research collaborations and researcher applications since 2022 due to national security concerns, particularly regarding China, prompting a new screening law to vet international researchers and students.
- How do the university risk assessment teams determine the level of risk, and what are the different types of risks involved?
- This heightened scrutiny reflects a broader trend since 2022, spurred by warnings from the Dutch National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security (NCTV) about China's attempts to acquire high-value technology. Dutch universities are balancing the need for global collaboration with the imperative to protect sensitive information and prevent undue foreign influence.
- What specific actions have Dutch universities taken to mitigate risks associated with international collaborations and researchers, and what are the immediate consequences?
- Hundreds of international collaborations and applications from foreign researchers at Dutch universities have been halted in recent years due to potential risks, based on advice from internal university teams focused on preventing sensitive knowledge and technology from falling into the wrong hands. These internal assessments carry significant weight, although exceptions are possible.
- What are the potential long-term impacts of the proposed screening law on the competitiveness of Dutch universities in attracting and retaining international researchers and talent?
- The introduction of a new screening law, enabling Justis to vet international researchers, presents both opportunities and challenges. While enhancing security, the lengthy administrative processes could deter talented applicants, potentially impacting Dutch universities' competitiveness in attracting international talent. The requirement for screening approximately 10,000 researchers annually also raises concerns about efficiency and potential discriminatory effects.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the issue primarily through the lens of security concerns, emphasizing the risks of knowledge leakage and foreign influence. The headline and introduction immediately highlight the restrictions on international collaborations, setting a tone of caution and potential threat. While risks are valid concerns, this framing may overshadow the importance of international academic cooperation.
Language Bias
The article generally maintains a neutral tone. However, phrases like "in verkeerde buitenlandse handen komen" (fall into the wrong foreign hands) carry negative connotations and suggest a potential threat. The use of terms like "mogendheden" (powers) when referring to China, Russia and Iran also contributes to a slightly negative perception. More neutral phrasing could be employed.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses on universities' concerns regarding knowledge security, but omits discussion of the potential benefits of international collaboration and the potential negative impacts of restricting it. It doesn't explore the perspectives of researchers from other countries who might be affected by these restrictions. While space constraints might justify some omissions, a balanced perspective would strengthen the article.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by focusing on the risks of international collaboration without fully exploring the potential benefits and the trade-offs involved. The implicit framing suggests that openness automatically equals risk, neglecting the complexities of managing such collaborations effectively.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights measures taken by Dutch universities to prevent sensitive knowledge and technology from falling into the wrong hands, thus contributing to national security and preventing potential harm. This aligns with SDG 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.