Speaking to the entrepreneurial University of Twente, Minister Brinkhorst of Economic Affairs lashed out at advocates of the `independent' university. The latter retaliated in their opening speeches for the new academic year.
It is the `ivory tower' of academic freedom, versus the `agora' of market utility, according to Brinkhorst. Last year, this battle appeared to have been won by supporters of the latter. At that time, almost all of the opening speeches addressed top research, performance and innovation. The maxim of Philips (knowledge, skills, jackpot) seemed to have conquered the academic world. However, the skeptics appear to have recovered, and they hit back hard.
It is not just an academic discussion; there is a lot at stake here. In the near future, the cabinet will present plans for an alternative way of financing academic research. The Innovation Platform will publish its recommendations in November.
Minister Brinkhorst quoted science philosopher Michael Gibbons, who claimed that in this age of globalization, innovation is mostly the result of interdisciplinary cooperation, including connections with industry. `That will produce more interaction between fundamental research at the university and society.' Brinkhorst called the contrast with the classical university as Bildungsinstitut `highly rhetorical and hypothetical, because neither society nor industry expects universities to give up on research instigated by curiosity.'
Yet that is precisely what opponents are afraid of. Opponents like Wim Noomen, chairman of the Executive Board of the Vrije Universiteit, who accused government and industry of having a `limited, mostly short-term vision' on the impact of science on society. `First of all, the primary function of science is cultural, not economical, which is threatened by the requirement of economic yield.' To support his view he quoted Schraven, chairman of employers' organisation VNO-NCW, who said that scientific institutes should consider it their mission to work for the industry and, if necessary, should be forced by the government to do so.
Noomen insists that he does not mean that the VU does not want to work intensively with industry, but he considers fundamental research - the `beating heart of the knowledge infrastructure' - an essential prerequisite. Independent research should not depend on `aiming for results that have a practical use, but instead society should allow for institutes where people are paid to make mistakes. Trial and error.'
As if to prove Noomens' right, Philips top executive Gerard Kleisterlee spoke simultaneously at the University of Tilburg in favor of combining open research and industrial application. `Philips does not call something an innovation until it actually makes us money.' Those words did not fall on deaf ears with Rector Magnificus Lamberts of the Erasmus University Rotterdam. Lamberts preferred to speak of a `multiversity,' referring to the attention to social service, the alliance with businesses and the increasing commercialization. As a shining example, he mentioned the Academic Centre TransPORT, a joint venture of industry, local government and the University of Delft. `The ambition is to become one the top three centers in the world.' That is exactly the kind of market thinking that should be music to the ears of Minister Brinkhorst.
HOP
Trans. Jeroen Latour
