In 1999, professor and dean Maarten Merkx made a deliberate choice to spend two and a half years working as a postdoc in the United States (US), at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He says that, at the time, the US was the place to go for a young scientist, “because it seemed like anything was possible.” This was something that drew him – and many other scientists – to the country.

Since recent developments, under the leadership of President Trump, there has been a growing sense that less and less is allowed and possible. According to Merkx, this change could signify the end of the US’s leading position in science since World War II. “The first Trump administration introduced the concept of ‘alternative facts.’ Now, Trump is taking it even further: he’s trying to dictate what the facts are.”

Are you worried about the Trump administration’s actions when it comes to science?

“Yes, of course. The restricting of academic freedom, banning of certain terms, people being deported just like that if their research or their opinions don’t align with the government... And if they don’t comply, there are significant financial consequences, which in turn can have a major impact on research and education. Just look at Columbia University or the National Institute of Health, for example. That’s why it’s extremely important that Harvard decided not to go along with this. Because of their prestige and large endowment, they’re one of the few institutions that can actually afford to do this – for the time being. So first and foremost, I worry about my colleagues in the US. But science is international, so this also affects science in general.”

“And if facts don’t actually matter anymore, that’s not just a danger to science, but to society as a whole. The biggest threat is self-censorship. You can tell that people are becoming more and more careful about what they say.However, this is something some American universities were already guilty of even before Trump came into office, by trying to be as ‘woke’ as possible.”

Do you personally notice the effects of the measures in your work?

“No, I can’t think of any direct examples at the moment. I heard in the news that certain questionnaires have been sent to European universities. For example, to researchers at the universities of Wageningen and Leiden. But I haven’t experienced anything like that myself yet. A few weeks ago, a professor from Harvard visited us for our symposium. He painted a picture of deep uncertainty and expressed great concern. Both about whether research proposals that had already been submitted would still be funded and about the longer-term consequences.” 

What threats do you see for your work, TU/e, and education and research in general?

“Science is international. The measures aimed at education and research in the US are going to affect us in two ways. Firstly, in a direct way: research or research collaborations in or with the US will become more difficult. But they can also have an indirect effect. The US holds quite a strong position both in science and beyond. And what we’re already seeing right now is that universities and researchers outside the US are being monitored as well – for example, through those questionnaires. And if you refuse to comply, you’re sidelined; you’re no longer allowed to participate. In time, this can become a risk for TU/e and for science in general.”

Do you also see opportunities? 

“Well, not in the general sense. The opportunism of those who see this as a chance to score points frustrates me. The Minister (of Education, Culture and Science) and NWO (the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research) have announced a fund to attract top scientists who want to leave the country to the Netherlands. An odd move from this minister. He just cut billions from research, people are being laid off in several places, and a week later he says: ‘Let’s ask NWO for some money to hire top scientists from the US.’”

I think the US could lose its leading position in the physical sciences if this goes on much longer. If the US becomes less appealing, because less is allowed and possible, it will also attract less talent. A good portion of the research at the top universities is done by Asians and Europeans. For a long time, it was the entrepreneurial spirit and the sense that so much was possible that attracted top talent from all over the world. That is what the US’s leading position was built on. It’s also why I did my postdoc there. They’re now at risk of losing this top position, and that could create opportunities for places like Europe – if Europe were to actually invest significantly more in research. And for China, of course.”

What do you think TU/e could or should do to protect its own research and education?

“I think the most important thing is how we respond to this. The best thing we can do as universities is to stand together. We have to make sure that all Dutch universities present a united front – which I believe is already happening – and that this also happens at the European and international level. On your own, you don’t stand a chance; as Europe, you do.”

“And it’s important that we don’t let the US pit us against each other. It might seem appealing in the short term to say: ‘We’re not doing anything with gender or vaccines’ to avoid sanctions from the US, but that’s a very dangerous path. You’re aiming for short-term gain, but you’re also actively helping to tear things down in the long term.”