Funding for international top scientists, cutbacks for the rest
There is something fundamentally wrong between a fund for top scientists and cutbacks in higher education, says Bart Brouwers.
Published on March 21, 2025
© Pjotr Wiese / RUG
Bart, co-founder of Media52 and Professor of Journalism oversees IO+, events, and Laio. A journalist at heart, he keeps writing as many stories as possible.
In the highly charged debate surrounding the attacks on science in the US, the Netherlands wants to free up money to attract top international scientists (i.e., those working in America). This is necessary, says Minister Eppo Bruins: “Top-level international scientists are invaluable in boosting knowledge and innovation.” It sounds like a strategically wise move. While geopolitical tensions in the world are increasing and countries such as the United States under Trump are once again creating an unsafe climate for science, the Netherlands is trying to present itself as a haven for scientific talent. NWO has been tasked with setting up a special fund that offers quick and accessible access to funding for top international scientists. Sounds good. But isn't there a problem somewhere?
At the same time, or rather, in the same breath, there are serious concerns about the state of Dutch higher education. Universities are groaning under the increasing workload, years of underfunding and an increasingly restrictive policy when it comes to internationalization. The “Internationalization in Balance” act – currently in consultation – aims to reduce the number of international students by, among other things, making it compulsory for courses to be taught in Dutch. And then there are the announced cutbacks in higher education and research, which will put pressure on the room for experimentation, innovation and international cooperation.
What is the message?
An uneasy tension is developing. On the one hand, the Netherlands is presenting itself as a magnet for the best international talent. On the other hand, it is cutting itself off at the knees with its cutbacks, increasing regulatory pressure and a policy climate that does not so much embrace internationalization as try to limit it. How credible is that message to scientists worldwide when they arrive here to find a system that is locked up tight?
Following the wrong example: budget cuts threaten Dutch education
The Netherlands is cutting back on its own knowledge and is becoming a global laggard – while other countries are investing in science.
The political desire to gain control over the internationalization of higher education is not incomprehensible. The influx of international students has grown rapidly and universities are struggling with housing, capacity and integration. But the danger is that the blunt instrument is now being used. International students are often the driving force behind new lines of research, the bridge builders to other cultures and, last but not least, the future PhD candidates and researchers. In other words: the top scientists of tomorrow.
Two realities collide
In the letter to parliament we read that the new instrument must be “country neutral”, “with as little administrative burden as possible” and focused on “areas of strategic importance for the Netherlands”. That sounds efficient and decisive. But what does the reality look like for these scientists? Will they end up in a research group where resources are increasingly scarce? Where colleagues suffer from burnout? Where support for international cooperation is under pressure?
The ambition to attract “several dozen top scientists” is realistic in itself. But let's face it: it is not only the top 0.01% who make the difference in a knowledge economy. It is also the young researchers, PhD candidates, postdocs and talented master's students – whether or not from outside the Netherlands – who together form that ecosystem of knowledge building and innovation. Those who only chase stars, but neglect the undergrowth, sow the seeds of a system that will collapse in the long term. And that's what's happening.
Knowledge economy – or not
The key question is, therefore, whether the Netherlands really wants to remain a knowledge economy. Or is it limiting itself to symbolic politics? A fund for top scientists is a good start, but it is not a structural solution. If we are serious about knowledge, innovation and competitiveness, then this requires more than occasional impulses. It requires investments throughout the entire chain: from bachelor's degrees to professors, from institutions to facilities.
Dutch universities rally against budget cuts as international talent shines
During the opening of the academic year, Dutch universities voiced their concern about the budget cuts and the decreasing level of internationalization.
And yes, sometimes you have to have the uncomfortable conversation about the role of internationalization. Not with the starting point of “how do we keep them out?” but rather “how do we make our education and research attractive and sustainable for everyone, from Groningen to Hyderabad?”
A fund is not a vision
In short, the new NWO instrument is a well-intentioned, perhaps even necessary initiative in a world full of scientific migration. But without a broader, consistent vision of the future of higher education in the Netherlands – including funding, workload, internationalization and academic freedom – it will remain stuck in symptom management. A country that, on the one hand, opens its doors to top scientists but, on the other hand, structurally undermines the foundation of science will ultimately not be the knowledge nation it claims to want to be.
On Tuesday, the Senate will discuss the education budget, which includes the budget cuts already approved by the House of Representatives. It is a good time to put a stop to this process, and it helps that the 75 members of the House have additional proof in the form of Minister Bruins' proposal that science should not be discarded so easily.