National Center for Science Communication
At the end of May, it was announced that the Netherlands will have a ‘national center for science communication’. This center should effectively communicate scientific facts to a wide audience. The context of this becomes clear in a quote from Minister Dijkgraaf of Education, Culture and Science from the national government news item:
“I stand for scientific facts and those who proclaim them. Over the past corona period, we have seen how scientific knowledge can come under pressure in our public and political debate. A solid role for science in our society also requires a solid foundation for our science communication.”
“Ministry of Truth”
In his novel ‘1984’ George Orwell wrote about the “Ministry of Truth”, the government agency that decides whether something is truth. Minister Dijkgraaf of Education and Science is now arguing for a government agency that should communicate scientific information to a wide audience. Over the past two years we have been introduced to government communication about corona, the effectiveness of lockdowns, mouth masks, washing hands, vaccinations. Asking questions about this, asking for open debates, the transparent sharing of data and models suddenly became a threat. Differing scientifically based opinion was censored.
It even went so far that doctors had to deal with the Health and Youth Care Inspectorate when providing their patients with ‘informed consent’ about medication and vaccination.
The Doctors Collective fears that this new communication center could become a “Center of Academic Truth”, propagating the government’s chosen interpretation of the data. Minister Dijkgraaf spoke about science communication during a lecture on 11 March 2022 in Leiden entitled “When Knowledge becomes Critical”. In this lecture, the corona vaccines are described as “a heroic achievement by the global research community” that “worked better than we dared to dream”. Critics of these vaccines have “sown doubt with the worst intentions”, “from the depths of the internet”. In addition, “scientists were threatened,” he reported.
Scientists threatened and fired
What the minister is doing here in our opinion is to dismiss critics and to present an excessively rosy picture of a vaccine technology that we now know did not work as well “as dreamed” in reality.
Minister Dijkgraaf must know that there is another side to this story, and that scientists were also threatened and fired because they had justified scientific doubts, for example about the vaccines and whether it is necessary to vaccinate the entire population, about lockdowns, about mouth masks, in Europe as well as in the United States and in Canada?
The words “misinformation” and “disinformation” are on the tip of their tongues when politicians detect unwelcome criticism of their policies. Will that spirit be transferred to the new science communication center? The minister will also know that what was “misinformation” and “disinformation” yesterday may be a “real possibility” today.
We look back on two of the socially most remarkable years in the Netherlands in a long time.
Two years in which asking questions, asking for open debates and requests to transparently share the data and models used by the government could suddenly pose a threat to one’s own existence in the public space, social media and even in the workplace. . Where scientists were barred from attending conferences because of their vaccination status, even if they could demonstrate natural immunity. Without their colleagues looking or blushing.
Protect against unfounded criticism
Minister Dijkgraaf recently indicated that he was “100%” behind the recent letter from Marion Koopmans and Marc Bonten in the Volkskrant, a letter that was signed by 300 Dutch scientists. This letter aims to protect science against unfounded criticism from the House of Representatives. In an interview with United States-based Dr. It becomes clear to Eline van den Broek-Altenburg (health economist, epidemiologist and biostatistician) that Koopmans and Bonten certainly do not speak on behalf of all Dutch scientists, especially because the other side, that of threats and exclusions, is completely ignored. In response to the letter from Koopmans and Bonten, she appealed to Minister Robbert Dijkgraaf to also stand up for scientists who are critical of government policy. De Volkskrant refused to print her response and the opinion piece by technology philosopher Dr Martijntje Smits and immunologist/vaccine expert Dr Jona Walk was also rejected by de Volkskrant.
Unfortunately, we have seen the openness disappear from the scientific debate since 2020. Recommendations and measures were firmly proclaimed. A ‘government narrative’ emerged from a perspective that allowed virtually no other views and was disseminated unanimously by the media. In our view, this created the idea among the population too easily that the policy would always be scientifically well-founded and effective and that there were no other options.
Science is about doubting and asking questions
Science is about doubting and asking questions. A scientific theory and research can be tested, repeated and disproved at any time. That is the essence of free, independent science. This requires a free and respectful dialogue. A dialogue that the Doctors Collective fears will become even more difficult next autumn due to the establishment of the national center for science communication.
Support us, become friends!
Together we stand stronger. From fear back to confidence!
Disclaimer: The Doctors Collective is not responsible for the content on the aforementioned pages of external parties to which reference is made. Sharing a page does not mean that the Doctors Collective shares all views. The Doctors Collective supports the gathering and sharing of (medical) information without censorship in order to stimulate an open conversation / scientific discussion.