Academics say draft screening law could deter foreign talent

Academics in the Netherlands are concerned that a proposed new law requiring the screening of incoming graduate students and researchers intending to work in ‘sensitive’ subject areas could create delays that might drive foreign talent to apply to universities in other countries instead.

Universities of the Netherlands (UNL), the umbrella association of Dutch universities, has already said that it will oppose the bill.

UNL Chairperson Caspar van den Berg said in a statement to University World News that longer processing times for vetting to comply with the bill would make the Netherlands a “less attractive destination for international talent compared to neighbouring countries – at a time when such talent is urgently needed”.

The bill – the first of its kind in Europe – comes against the backdrop of growing concerns in recent years about research security and campus-based espionage.

Even beyond Europe, however, it is still rare for major destination countries to have a dedicated screening law for the academic sector, with vetting for international graduate students and researchers typically carried out under immigration and visa regulations.

National research funding bodies have their own vetting rules, and universities such as Switzerland’s ETH Zurich, which last year announced its own vetting scheme, also have their own rules.

The Knowledge Security Screening Bill, tabled on 7 April by Dutch Education Minister Eppo Bruins, states: “Iran, China and Russia engage in a variety of intelligence and influence activities, including targeting their diaspora in the Netherlands.” However, the draft bill covers screening of those applying from outside the European Union, as well as EU and Dutch students, to avoid falling foul of anti-discrimination laws.

The legislative proposal estimates the screening would affect around 40% of researchers in science and technology fields in the Netherlands.

A ‘complicated’ issue

“The government has been working on this for at least a couple of years now,” said Ingrid d’Hooghe, senior research fellow at the Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations in The Hague. “But it is very complicated. So it took them a long time to come up with this draft – it is 126 pages, an extensive document.”

The proposed draft identifies 21 categories of science for screening. “Then in some areas, [it identifies] people doing research or studying in sub-areas of these categories. So, it is quite detailed about when and where you will be screened,” d’Hooghe told University World News.

“The identification of these (sensitive) research areas has been a long process, and there have been consultations with universities on that as well,” she explained, adding that universities themselves said it is difficult to keep information on sensitive areas updated.

While other countries have lists of sensitive topics and countries of concern, d’Hooghe noted the proposed law “is based on what kind of technology is being developed in the Netherlands, and that's also why universities have this role in determining which projects are really part of their ‘crown jewels’, which is specific knowledge that should stay in their control”.

“I am sure they [the ministry] also looked at other lists, but they did not copy and paste; it is based on analysis made in the Netherlands.

“Intelligence services will play a role as they will have information no other organisation has,” she added.

Sector opposition

While other European countries, notably Sweden and Denmark, conduct background checks of foreign applicants, screening will be a legal requirement once the law is passed in the Netherlands. According to ministry estimates, around 8,000 masters’ students and researchers will be screened each year.

“It’s a lot of people, and that's a big concern for many universities,” d’Hooghe noted.

UNL’s Van den Berg said in his statement on Wednesday, “The proposal raises serious concerns on several fronts. It is disproportionate, requiring universities to process 8,000 individual screenings annually without a clear explanation of how this would actually improve national security.

“It is also poorly executable, as it remains uncertain whether the screening authority, Justis, is willing or able to take on this responsibility, with no alternative plan in place.

“Furthermore, the measure is unlikely to be effective; it creates a false sense of security, as students and researchers denied entry to the Netherlands could still gain access to the same knowledge through institutions in other EU member states. In addition, it risks creating an uneven playing field within Europe.”

He added: “The financial impact on universities would also be significant. Processing these screenings would require considerable resources at a time when the higher education sector is already facing over €500 million (US$569 million) in budget cuts. Universities do not receive additional funding for these screenings.”

According to the ministry’s own estimates, screening would cost the government €15.3 million annually on top of implementation costs of €7.9 million but will be free for institutions and candidates.

Nonetheless, institutions must monitor sensitive fields by maintaining a list of departments and research projects that will have to be reported under the proposed law. Upgrading security, including that of laboratories, is another cost, according to universities.

“Technical universities, especially, will have to get people ready to deal with these tasks,” said Ben Wagner, an associate professor in the Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management at Netherlands’ Delft University of Technology (TU Delft), one of the country’s largest institutions dealing with sensitive technologies.

“This will also cost universities money and manpower, and this is a concern, especially given current budget cuts” in the Netherlands, he told University World News.

“Knowledge security has been ramped up quite considerably in the last two to three years in the Netherlands and Dutch universities in general,” said Wagner. The new bill is “an ongoing process of trying to ensure that higher levels of knowledge security and higher levels of different mechanisms are in place because a lot of this has previously been more voluntary.

“Now, we're seeing a shift away from voluntary to mandatory measures for different areas.”

Impact of possible delays

Screening can be done quickly if it is only a general check, but the text of the proposed law indicates that scientists need to be examined more thoroughly – not only to establish whether a candidate has a criminal record but to establish their educational and employment history, their family and any risky contacts, for example, with a certain regime. Information from the security services may also be used for this.

Justis, an agency of the Justice Ministry, is given four weeks to carry out the screenings under the draft bill. Where necessary, this can be extended by another four weeks, the draft says.

D’Hooghe said universities were concerned about “talents going elsewhere because they're not confident it will be done within a couple of weeks.

“The screening has to take place before the [research] proposal can be accepted. So, if there’s a lot of hassle and people have other opportunities, they [universities] are afraid people will go elsewhere,” she said.

Education Minister Bruins stressed to parliament during a debate in late January that the government was “really going to try to prevent delays”. In response to concerns that students and researchers may go elsewhere, he suggested other countries were working on similar legislation and regulations.

The minister admitted in his written explanation of the legislative proposal that the proposed screenings are only “a snapshot”. An assessment is only made at the moment someone starts study or research. He pointed out that the person in question can be recruited in the years afterwards by a “foreign power with bad intentions”.

Nonetheless, he wanted to ensure additional conditions were imposed on some people before they were given access to sensitive knowledge and technology, he said.

Wagner said: “What is also a concern is that the screening may go quite deep, so [it] will become quite personal. I think many people will protest against it.”

Countries like the Netherlands are trying to attract foreign researchers in fields such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing.

“The Dutch government is nudging lots of people to work on these topics, while at the same time saying you need to be very selective about who you bring in to work on those topics. It could possibly be detrimental to research quality because we’re limiting people, and we’re also signalling to people that they are less welcome than they perhaps should be,” Wagner said.

He pointed to “a wider risk of a chilling effect on people being willing to conduct certain types of research”.

Despite the bill’s non-discriminatory intentions, universities acknowledge that candidates from certain countries will be more closely scrutinised, making it what one academic called “a two-tier system”.

Existing mechanisms

In 2022, the government opened a specialised National Contact Point for Knowledge Security that universities can approach for advice.

Describing it as a “more effective and proportionate alternative”, Van den Berg said the contact point could be given the authority to advise on individual applications.

“This would achieve the same security objectives without pricing the Netherlands out of the international talent market or introducing unnecessary bureaucracy for universities and government agencies alike,” he said.

“The Netherlands has taken a leading role in Europe in the area of knowledge security. In recent years, Dutch universities have introduced their own measures that have proven to be effective: each year, hundreds of applications considered to pose a security risk are rejected,” he pointed out.

He added the new legislative proposal “now threatens to undermine this balanced approach”.

Dutch broadcaster NOS reported last month the contact point had been consulted by universities more than 500 times since its launch.

After requesting information from the top 10 Netherlands research universities “most likely to be confronted by such risks”, the NOS investigation found that hundreds of international collaborations and applications from foreign researchers were declined at universities after they conducted their own internal risk assessment.

Although not all universities provided figures, the advisory team at TU Delft said it looked at around 700 cases a year, and 15% of these received a negative risk assessment. At Eindhoven University of Technology, 30% receive a negative assessment, NOS reported, noting the figures also reflected the types of research at the individual universities.

One reason for a negative assessment, for example, is that a researcher’s resume showed they have ties to one of the Seven Sons of National Defence, a group of universities affiliated with the Chinese military, NOS noted.

Consultations on the proposed bill will be held in the next three months before a new draft is submitted to parliament. Bruins said he hopes the first security checks under the new law can begin as early as mid-2027.