The effects of the measures on domestic science taken in a short period of time by the Trump administration are felt not only by researchers in climate science or vaccine or gender studies, but are also a source of concern for other researchers and professionals. Take Carlo van de Weijer, director of Eindhoven AI Systems Institute (EAISI), who is working with his team to make sure AI applications are embedded in every fiber of TU/e.

This is because he firmly believes that AI has the potential to accelerate innovations, thereby providing a huge boost to the productivity of researchers. However, almost all AI tools come from Silicon Valley, i.e., from the United States. A big problem, Van de Weijer believes. The development of AI is moving much faster than many people think. And Europe currently has no good alternatives for all of these AI tools. “Here at EAISI, we try out everything. I feel that I myself have become twice as productive in the last few months.”

Are you worried about the Trump administration’s actions when it comes to science?
“In principle, I’m not that quick to worry, but I do raise my eyebrows at the way Trump (and associates) are targeting science in the US. It’s not so much a particular measure, but the overall pattern: less room for facts, critical questions, and independent research.”

“On the other hand: I do recognize the criticism that a lot of the reasoning at a university stems from the academic bubble, but making university voices suspect by definition is very unwise. And denying major social problems is potentially disastrous. Those problems need the innovation produced by universities.”

Do you personally notice the effects of the measures in your work?
“I’m a ‘fellow for AI’ at the think tank Singularity University in Silicon Valley, where technology and progress are built precisely on open science and international collaboration. That makes it extra important to continue to actively defend such values. What does surprise me is the speed with which some leaders in that world seem to be latching on to Republican narratives and plans such as Project 2025 (a lengthy list of conservative ideas compiled by over a hundred American think tanks, ed.).”

“That jumping on the bandwagon sometimes strikes me as being opportunistic, and I do find that worrisome. Not because of any one political color, but because of the risk that technology is increasingly being used as an ideological tool rather than as an open platform to generate value for society.”

What threats do you see for your work, TU/e, and education and research in general?
“The real threat, as far as I’m concerned, is one that creeps up on you: if science loses its natural place in society, it becomes difficult to preserve long-term thinking. Especially in times when quick opinions and short-term politics dominate.”

Do you also see opportunities?
“Besides the fact that scientists are more likely to choose European universities, this is the moment when Europe can show what academic freedom really means. That we do research that’s not only smart, but also socially relevant. And that we continue to collaborate internationally, even though it feels like swimming against the current at times.”

“I’m convinced that Europe is going to come out stronger at the other end. We’ve become a bit ‘lazy and fat’, but we have a very high level of prosperity. And we have knowledge. I think it’s good that there has been a wake-up call so that we start investing in our own AI tools. As soon as our easy life is even the least bit threatened, people take action very quickly. The ability to do something, we do have that.”

“At EAISI, our mission is to integrate AI into machines in collaboration with companies in the region. This does allow us to set ourselves apart from the US. Instead of replicating AI tools – a battle we can’t win – we can combine AI with high-tech systems. That’s our specialty in this region, after all. And in the long run we have to make sure that we continue to lead the pack in this regard.”

What do you think TU/e could or should do to protect its own research and education?
“Just keep doing what we’re good at, and publicize this a bit more actively. Show that science is allowed to be open, curious, and independent – and that this leads to progress that benefits everyone. But we also have to realize that behind the ideology in America there’s a plan that you can’t fight with disapproval and regulations alone.”

“All too often, decency is standing on the sidelines, being all high and mighty but not lifting a finger. We must make a better plan that satisfies the human need for progress in addition to safeguarding a long-term future. That is how we’ve always progressed and that is how we’ll do it now.”