Many scientists are guilty of unauthorised research practices. They say so themselves, in a survey of 6,800 Dutch academics, in 'Prevalence of questionable research practices' (PLOS ONE, 2022). As many as half of the participants say they feel compelled to adjust research questions or change data, for example.
Reason is the pressure scientists experience: to bring in money, to publish or keep clients happy. Academics are also more often expected to have social impact and get involved in the public debate. But when science gets mixed up with politics, there can be consequences, as researchers experience facing online harassment and physical threats. This even prompted Dutch universities to open a 'hotline' for threatened scientists: WetenschapVeilig.nl.
Discussions about the values of science are being held at more and more universities. At Erasmus University, this has taken the form of a university-wide debate on 'Erasmian values', for which there is also a chair, which I am honoured to hold. Discussions on values have long been taboo, even in politics. The last to try it was Jan Peter Balkenende, who started a debate on values and norms after becoming prime minister in 2002. Before that, Jan Marijnissen had started a debate on 'De uitverkoop van de beschaving' (2001). These were initiatives that ran up against the zeitgeist at the time and were mostly seen as conservative and meddlesome. Values were a private matter - for behind the front door - and not for politics. Discussions on values were mostly seen as moralising and imposing our personal values on other people.
The lack of discussion on values left many organisations vulnerable, especially universities. If you do not think about your own values, your value is quickly determined externally: by the values of markets (making returns) or of the government bureaucracy (striving for efficiency). Many researchers can make returns very efficiently, but that does not make them academic researchers. A situation that leads to staff discomfort, as the survey of Dutch academics showed. Scientists need to bring in money and get involved in the public debate, but at the same time they need to maintain their individuality and independence. How they do that is not just their own consideration, but a shared interest. By thinking about the values of science, we can strengthen academic communities and make researchers less vulnerable to influence.
But can we still do that, talk about shared values? In a society that is polarising, in markets where interests clash and with social media magnifying contradictions? As a researcher in Erasmian values, I may turn to Desiderius Erasmus for that. He was a philosopher who taught his contemporaries how to conduct such a debate. With humour and irony - and above all with self-relativisation. By empathising with others and without being too easily angered or offended. You only get freedom if you also grant others freedom; you can only count on understanding if you first try to understand others. Ideas that have lost little topicality, in a cancel culture where the battle over words can frustrate the exchange of thoughts. The zeitgeist seems to be reversing again and the discussion of values is back in full swing. At university, but also in politics and in society.
I get to talk more about Erasmus and the values of science: on Friday 25 November. During my inaugural lecture at Erasmus University. Which you can follow physically or digitally.
- More information
This commentary piece originally appeared with the Montesquieu Institute, in preparation for Ronald van Raak's inaugural lecture entitled 'Erasmus and the values of science'.
