It’s important with such a complex subject as this not to set your expectations too high, says Olga Zvonareva. She is a philosopher with the department of Health, Ethics and Society and researches the intersection of politics and science. “Don’t think that a tool, whatever that looks like, is a silver bullet solution. It can be really good, but these are complex problems that involve all sorts of interconnected topics. There is no single simple solution.”
Don’t expect to be able to separate politics and research either, she says: “They are always linked.” Public opinion, which way the political winds blow, that is what citizens in democracies find important and is visible in the choices made in research.
That influence is often clearly unwanted under authoritarian regimes. “If you want to try to research anything about ‘gender’ in Russia at the moment, or so much as mention that word in your research proposal, you will receive some unpleasant attention, potentially also from the security services,” says Zvonareva, who is herself Russian. “There’s no law forbidding gender studies, but people do think twice – or even three times – before starting anything like that.”
Not here
That will never happen here, a Dutch person might think now. But while it is less severe, Zvonareva does see that there are “problematic” topics in Western democracies, too. “Ethics committees, for example, do spend more and more time considering potential damage to the institute’s reputation. They determine whether there are risks attached to the research and whether it is responsible to take those risks. For example, if you want to carry out fieldwork in a war zone, there are clearly risks attached. But research funders – thankfully, I have yet to see it happen at Maastricht University – now more often raise the question: what would it mean to our reputation if we are associated with this research?”
It means that potentially controversial or sensitive subjects are avoided more frequently and are harder to obtain funding for. “Despite the point of universities also being to do research on more unpopular, but potentially societally relevant, topics.” She lists a recent Canadian example, where a researcher – who was doing a study into assisted suicide – had his confidential research data subpoenaed. At that time, involvement in assisted suicide could result in up to fourteen years in jail. “He refused to name names, but was not supported in this by his university. They washed their hands of him, scared of the damage to their reputation. Yet another barrier for others to do similar research.”
In depth
In short, even with a tool, you can’t prevent political influence entirely. Self-censorship can play a part anywhere. It’s part of the reason that Zvonareva finds it so important that when certain institutes are examined, it is done very carefully. “I hope that this HRDD tool means that there will be a committee looking into each case in depth.”
She is worried that cutting ties “automatically, so with all institutions in a specific region, without looking at them individually” could have unintended consequences. “From my own experience I can tell that after the Netherlands cut ties with Russia, it affected staunch war-supporters and dissenters, who persisted in trying to preserve respect for human rights and international law in their teaching and research in Russian universities, equally.”
Seeds
Scientific collaboration won’t solve any major conflicts or topple any authoritarian regimes, but you can plant seeds, says Zvonareva. “During the time of the Cold War, contacts were maintained, which helped promote understanding, aided the conversation. After the fall of the Soviet Union, it was precisely those seeds that massively helped break up the old systems.”
Another downside when you stop collaboration: it’s harder to know what is going on in the area. “It’s almost impossible to carry out research in a country where there are no local contacts. That’s impossible without collaboration. And that raises the question, does this help prevent the violation of human rights? Because the ultimate aim of the HRDD tool is that as a university, we don’t contribute in any way to the violation of human rights. So then you have to ask yourself how you’re going to achieve that. And consider how you avoid losing allies, what the impact is of being unable to plant seeds for a more peaceful future, and of not knowing what is going on in the area.”
Individual collaboration
Wouldn’t it be possible to maintain all that through collaboration with individual researchers? Proponents of a boycott emphasise that they have no objections to that. “Up to now, in Russia’s case, it has always been deemed by universities that as soon as you start working together in areas of research or education, that it’s a collaboration between institutes. Because you represent an institute and so do they. That means only personal contact is possible – my emails and phone calls aren’t being checked. As soon as it turns professional, it’s out of bounds. So unless that interpretation changes, cutting ties with institutions effectively means cutting all ties.”