Three experts (from TU, government and industry) enter into debate on a question. This time:
Text John Ekkelboom
© Sam Rentmeester
To what extent is it necessary to protect knowledge?
Weijland “That is an ethical, moral and strategic political question that can only be answered through discussion in science, politics and society.”
Jenniskens “Firstly, it is necessary to determine where the biggest external risks lie, and that’s where to apply your protection.”
Haaksman “That is determined by the risks you encounter. Preferably, you will shield yourself as little as possible from an open and international science.”
What is your definition of knowledge security?
Jenniskens “That you safeguard the integrity, security and availability of the knowledge you develop and store.”
Weijland “I adopt the definition from the government’s Knowledge Security Guidelines: knowledge security concerns undesirable knowledge transfer, covert influencing or ethical issues.”
Haaksman “We too use the definition adopted in the Knowledge Security Guidelines. The knowledge sector and the government have composed those guidelines together.”
What is the main knowledge you need to protect?
Jenniskens “The need-to-know principle applies to me. You want to protect knowledge that is of value. What remains, is publicly accessible.”
Haaksman “You protect where it’s really necessary and where the risks are biggest. One of the basic principles behind knowledge security is: open where possible and closed where necessary.”
Weijland “Sensitive knowledge about technology that can be used in both a civil and a military context or that can violate human rights, such as facial recognition software.”
From which country is there still something to learn about knowledge security? In other words, which country is already getting it right and why?
“The Netherlands is one of the front runners within the EU. The Anglo-Saxon countries, such as America, England, Australia and Canada, have had more stringent and more rigid rules in this area for some time now. The question is whether such rules will ultimately work effectively.”
“I am unaware of the situations in other countries. I hear from colleagues at universities and research institutes that the Netherlands is blazing ahead in this field.”
“Besides the Netherlands, other Member States with the European Union, such as Germany, the Czech Republic and France, are also paying attention to this issue. Member States and countries outside the European Union, such as America, Australia and the United Kingdom, are in contact with each other to learn from one another’s approach.”
‘The aim of our knowledge security policy is not simply to discard article 1 of
the constitution on
anti-discrimination’
How do you prevent certain nationalities from becoming victims of this policy? Or in other words, how do you prevent discrimination?
“This is indeed a thin line that needs to be monitored properly. The aim of our knowledge security policy is not simply to discard article 1 of the constitution on anti-discrimination. When we are asked questions about a collaboration or appointment of an individual, we look at their CV. If there are risky institutions or companies on it and if the research topic is sensitive, we generally issue a negative recommendation. Such a recommendation is independent of the person’s nationality. There are countries, such as Russia and Iran, to which rules on sanctions apply. In that case, any sort of collaboration is simply prohibited.”
“Our basic assumption is that the government pursues a country-neutral policy. For each international collaboration, we need to be aware of the opportunities and risks.
Geopolitical relations can change or state players find ways around gathering unique knowledge via Dutch knowledge institutes. But an individual foreign researcher must not suffer as a result of discrimination or stigmatisation under the guise of knowledge security. A risk consists of several factors and not just from a researcher’s country of origin. That highlights the importance of properly managed risk management.”
“We need to prevent discrimination in whatever way we can. Of course, ASML must also observe export compliance in legislation and regulations. Politics dictates to us what we are and are not allowed to do. As ASML, we do not take a position on this. We do, however, explain it clearly to our employees and applicants.”
Have we in the Netherlands become too naive when it comes to knowledge security?
“I think that the geopolitical developments in the past few years have certainly increased risk awareness in international collaboration. In addition to seeing opportunities, the attention being paid to risks has also increased. The ability to weigh up those opportunities and risks are central to knowledge security. That requires good judgement and nuance. In that sense, we have become less naive because institutions and the government are getting increasingly better at weighing up those opportunities and risks too. That is important, because we are fully committed to that international collaboration for top-level knowledge development.”
“The Netherlands certainly isn’t naive. Knowledge security has a lot to do with the internet. A great deal is distributed via the internet, including IT systems. The Netherlands is one of the countries where virtually all households have an internet connection. Major data centres belonging to Google, Facebook and Microsoft all want to be located in the Netherlands, due to our favourable tax environment, of course, but in particular because our infrastructure and information security are so good. However, for research institutes and universities, the budgets are the biggest stumbling block. I think they want to move faster than is financially possible. Companies such as ASML generally have those budgets.”
“I find it too easy to say that Dutch universities have become naive. Take China, for example. Ten years ago, the western world viewed China as a country of unprecedented opportunities. We trusted that the increasing welfare would automatically lead to the democratisation of that country – but that didn’t happen. Well, our ideas in relation to this point have certainly developed and grown. And it certainly doesn’t just concern knowledge security, but also strategic autonomy, cyber security, privacy and military threat, for example.”
‘The geopolitical developments
in the past few years have increased risk awareness in international collaboration’
Do economic interests rightly form part of knowledge security policy?
“In general, I would answer this question in the affirmative, but in the context of the universities I have my doubts. The average academic researcher understands very well that you must not violate any human rights and must understand interests surrounding national security. As far as economics are concerned, that is gradually becoming a slippery slope. Why should the researcher suddenly also stop and think about the Netherlands’ economic position? They are generally not trained or competent in this.”
“If certain knowledge is leaked, that affects a country’s economy. Entire sectors can be harmed by this. Companies such as ASML make enormous investments in innovation. That is the basis for success.
Our employees work hard and long on innovations and you don’t want someone else running away with it and benefiting from it. Only by continuously innovating will we maintain a lead, and so we need to protect our intellectual property with all resources.”
“Economic interests are not central to the Netherlands’ knowledge security policy. We have policy that specifically focuses on economic security for that. That concerns risks that can damage companies’ economic interests, but that can also have impactful consequences for Dutch economic interests or national security. We ensure, of course, that the policy is aligned to each other, because it is close together and it needs to strengthen each other too.”
Knowledge security and academic freedom don’t go hand in hand. Is this statement true? And how can you prevent that academic curtailment?
“As a government, we work hand in hand with knowledge institutes. Knowledge security is a shared responsibility. Knowledge institutes have taken up that particular gauntlet really well. In practice, it requires academics to deal with the risks that could occur in certain sensitive research areas in a well-considered manner. The more stringent the risk assessment, the better you can weigh up, for example, whether or not to enter into an international collaboration. Making such an assessment can support a researcher to do their research alone if the fundamental values, such as academic freedom, are respected. Knowledge security in that sense also contributes to academic freedom.”
“Knowledge security and academic freedom are opposing forces and thereby form a dilemma. That is partly a moral dilemma, caused by a threatening violation of human rights, for example, and partly also a political one, due to military or economic interests.
These dilemmas don’t just disappear. In order to manage that, a continuous dialogue between science, politics and society remain necessary. Restricting of academic freedom must be prevented because it hinders progress, causing the knowledge position to decrease.”
“As far as I’m concerned, this statement isn’t true. ASML is living proof that you can safeguard knowledge and still remain innovative and work together with others. So, it is possible, but it isn’t easy. You need to come to good arrangements and, for example, adjust your IT systems to this too. The balance between knowledge security and academic freedom is very precarious. You need to draw a line somewhere, and that is incredibly difficult. We play with that balance every day to ensure that we, together with our knowledge partners, maintain that academic freedom.”