Last Monday, the Dutch government released a draft version of the Knowledge Security Screening Bill for public consultation. The legislative proposal introduces mandatory security screenings for researchers and students who wish to work in fields deemed sensitive to national security, such as generative AI. According to the official Dutch government website, the bill aims to prevent sensitive knowledge from falling into foreign hands, as attempts to acquire Dutch technology and expertise continue to grow. 

Minister of Justice and Security David van Weel described the measure as essential to “enhance the resilience of the Netherlands’ knowledge institutions against external threats,” in a statement published on the Government of the Netherlands website. However, the academic community has raised concerns. Caspar van den Berg, Chair of the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (UNL), criticized the proposal in an interview with the Dutch public news agency NOS, stating: “This bill will lead to an unmanageable number of screenings and make the Netherlands less attractive to international talent, all while it remains uncertain whether the law will actually enhance security.”  

Indeed, the measures laid out in the draft bill could entail some drawbacks. For instance, their implementation could lead to delays in academic hiring. The government estimates that 8,000 individuals will be screened each year, which could significantly slow down recruitment processes, as each candidate’s background must be carefully assessed. Moreover, while the policy officially applies to all candidates regardless of nationality, including Dutch researchers, there is a risk that individuals from certain countries, such as China and Russia, may face stricter scrutiny, potentially leading to diplomatic tensions. 

The bill aligns with a broader European tendency to strengthen the protection of sensitive academic knowledge. In the Netherlands, steps in this direction began even before formal legislation. As reported by NOS, Dutch universities began screening and rejecting applications as early as 2022. Similar practices have also taken place in other European countries. According to Euroactiv, universities have implemented background checks on academic candidates in Denmark, Sweden, and Estonia. EU officials have spoken out on the issue, acknowledging the need to strike a delicate balance between openness of science and security. “The academic world in Europe has openness and cross-border cooperation in its DNA: this is its great strength, but it is also a vulnerability,” argued former European Commissioner Helena Dalli in November 2024, during a debate concerning the European Parliament.

This tension between scientific openness and security lies at the core of the debate surrounding the bill. While scientific progress relies on the free circulation of ideas and data, uncontrolled flows of sensitive knowledge can pose significant security threats. As reported by NOS, these risks go beyond the possibility of knowledge theft. Foreign governments or actors may pressure researchers to access and transmit classified information, exposing them to coercion and potential violations of their fundamental rights. These risks show that some level of security control is necessary.

However, addressing the issue only through unilateral national regulations risks undermining scientific collaboration and creating fragmented responses. A more effective strategy would be to develop international multilateral frameworks, allowing countries to work together to set minimum security standards for scientific exchange. A first step in this direction is the May 2024 Council Recommendation on Research Security, in which the EU called on Member States to adopt common principles to manage research security. Further progress could involve, for instance, creating an independent international body to monitor security threats linked to scientific cooperation. This way, the international community could safeguard both global security and scientific progress, without compromising the collaborative and open nature of research.