Geopolitics in Science Policy

Technological and geopolitical developments, such as war in Europe and the rise of new world powers, are leading to changes in scientific research and science policy. We see these changes in the substantive priorities of research and in the organisation of research. The Netherlands and other NATO countries, for example, have agreed to invest significantly more in defence-related research in the coming years. There is also a more critical assessment of which countries and institutions are desirable partners for international research collaboration.

International collaboration and open science no longer seem to be a given. Some types of research, such as basic research or climate research, appear to be losing priority. On the contrary, other research domains – such as key enabling technologies – are receiving greater attention.

These changes are far-reaching and their consequences are uncertain. Moreover, they touch upon a number of key values in science, such as transparency, openness and the importance of international cooperation. Many people within and outside the scientific community are concerned. They feel that the changes in science are happening too quickly or, conversely, too slowly. At the same time, there is little clarity on the exact impacts of geopolitical unrest on science. This makes it more difficult to weigh policy options and pursue sensible policymaking. 

Based on an exploratory study, the Rathenau Instituut presents an overview of how Dutch policymakers and practitioners understand the relationship between geopolitics and science. It also outlines the implications of these perspectives for the science system..

By ‘science system’, we mean the entirety of public organisations involved in the implementation, organisation and management of scientific research in the Netherlands. In addition to knowledge institutions, such as universities of applied sciences, universities and research institutes, the science system also includes the organisations responsible for management, funding and coordination, such as ministries, research funding bodies and advisory councils. 

The present exploratory study yielded eight characteristic perspectives. These perspectives illustrate the various ways in which stakeholders interpret the changing geopolitical situation (the problem analysis) and the way in which they subsequently translate this interpretation into policy and action (possible solutions).

These perspectives embody assumptions and ideas about what science can and should be, and what it should do. Depending on the perspective of the beholder, certain changes to the science system are more or less desirable.

Each of the perspectives centres on a characteristic concept. These are: strategic autonomy, technological sovereignty, competitiveness, national security, knowledge security, sustainability transitions, academic freedom, and science diplomacy. Each perspective has its own views regarding the science system and, when dominant, has consequences for science policy. Which perspective is or will become dominant partly determines the shape of the science system.

By juxtaposing these perspectives, we can see emerging tensions and dilemmas. In part, these are existing dilemmas that are gaining relevance due to geopolitical developments. And in part, they are also new dilemmas.

The five key tensions and dilemmas are:

1. Open science versus military interests; concerning the implications and trade-offs surrounding the growing budgets for defence-related research.
2. European coordination versus national science policy; concerning the relationship between European and national coordination of the Dutch science system.
3. Applied versus basic research; on the extent to which the science system should align with changing political priorities and societal needs.
4. Security versus sustainability; on the extent to which research for security objectives can be effectively combined with research for sustainability objectives.
5. Whether to collaborate with illiberal countries; on the conditions for international collaboration with countries and institutions that do not share the same democratic or academic values.

We propose that people within the scientific community engage in dialogue with one another about these dilemmas and about the why, what for, what and how of science. Such a conversation or dialogue can foster mutual understanding and appreciation for the pluralistic values of science. Furthermore, this dialogue helps to guide, coordinate and organise scientific research in these times of geopolitical turmoil.