Grappling with the value-freedom of science

Reading Bits&Chips is the joy of my week. It keeps me abreast of the developments in my field. More importantly these days, it’s a news space that lets me forget that important parts of the world are in constant turmoil. Eventful goings-on seem to bypass the world of deep tech, semicon and integrated photonics in the Netherlands.

Which, of course, they don’t. Mirroring steps undertaken by the new US administration and the German government, the Netherlands will spend 1.3 billion euros less on R&D until 2029, a decline of 14 percent. This is accompanied by harmful policies intended to reduce international enrolment. The reaction of the Dutch science community consists of a forceful combination of legal actions, lobbying and public appeal, and protests and strikes.

Following the massive government bailouts and money transfers required by the financial crisis, the Covid epidemic and the war in Ukraine, it’s paramount that (also) the Dutch government reevaluates its spending. Prioritizing healthcare and welfare over government-sponsored R&D comes naturally, certainly during election time.

This reminds me very much of the budget discussions I had as the head of R&D in several companies. At every yearly budget discussion, R&D would be treated as a cost center rather than an investment. During a downturn, it became even worse: R&D was always first in line to start planning layoffs. Long-term investment becomes a moot point once the company goes bankrupt. So, everything had to be geared towards short-term revenue.

The drivers for priority setting by the government are less unavoidable. Healthcare and welfare costs can be reined in, as previous governments have shown. Although the economic necessity is straightforward, I consider the prioritization process to be influenced by the culture war raging everywhere. The biggest, most influential political party in the Netherlands is explicit in wanting to defund science and technology to counter “woke activism.”

Whatever that may be, I’ve never associated it with the deep-tech and medtech science fields, which are hardest hit by the cuts. Social sciences may be inherently ‘woke,’ but not the exact sciences, was my thinking. As an idealist, I’ve always considered research in the exact sciences to be value-free, leading to irrefutable facts, the basis of our technological and industrial prosperity.

I must admit that it took me quite some time to realize and accept the naivety and inherent arrogance in this view. I found that it had been discussed and refuted extensively in science philosophy. The scientific process of rigorous replication, repeated testing and successful predictions certainly helps in eliminating some individual biases. But in the end, it’s all performed against a backdrop of imprints and values of particular times, places and people.

In view of the priority debate in budget planning, it’s very important that scientists come forward to defend their position. Advocating value-freedom is dangerous because few scientists (or science organizations) live up to it, forcing them to defend an indefensible ideal. Their impact will be much larger when they’re forthright about their values and belief systems.

When accused of “woke activism,” it befits the scientific community to assess where the allegation comes from, why part of it may be justified, and what can be adapted so that more buy-in is obtained from the main Dutch political party. This, while being transparent about their own values and belief systems.

In the meantime, I’m sure and grateful that Bits&Chips will continue my weekly culture-war-free reading time.