Academics allow themselves to be used by politicians

Researchers should not be held responsible for political choices, says professor of philosophy Ronald van Raak.

The coronavirus crisis already seems so long ago, but the consequences of the pandemic were enormous – including at universities. During several periods between 2020 and 2022, the university was closed and students could only attend lectures digitally. Student life came to a standstill as cafés and societies closed, and a curfew was even imposed.

This summer, I was reminded of that time when I followed the hearings of the parliamentary inquiry committee investigating the political response to the coronavirus crisis. Ministers who were in office at the time, including prime minister Mark Rutte, appeared before the committee.

Once again, I heard the same story Mark Rutte had already told during the press conferences in the midst of the coronavirus crisis: the policy chosen was the best policy because it was based on scientific knowledge. That sounds very good: politicians listening to science. But it is deeply troubling, because science was being used by politicians in this way.

Politics is about weighing interests and making choices that had an enormous impact on people during the coronavirus crisis. Choosing between conflicting interests, such as public health, in order to contain the pandemic, and the economy, which came to a standstill. Or between the interests of hospitals that were overwhelmed and schools that were closed: older people had to be protected, but young people meanwhile became depressed.

It is very wise for politicians to seek advice from scientists and base their decisions on the latest knowledge and insights. It is quite another matter when politicians say they based their policies, or their political choices, on science. Politicians then hide behind science and, in doing so, government officials try to shirk their responsibility.

Academic researchers do not make political choices – and besides: science as a whole does not exist. It makes quite a difference whether you seek advice during a pandemic from a doctor or an economist, a public administration or education specialist, or from people who study older or younger people: different scientists offer different perspectives – that is also the strength of science.

It was a strategy used by ministers to hide behind science. This also proved successful for them, but it was rather dangerous for scientists. Virologists in particular, who regularly provided information in the media, were held to account by angry people for measures chosen by government officials – resulting in serious digital and physical threats and intimidation.

We scientists should be much more assertive when politicians decide to hide behind our research. Politics may well become easier when politicians can invoke scientific research. But science loses a great deal of credibility if we allow government officials to hold us responsible for their political choices.