Alyt Damstra, a political scientist, observes a rising 'resistance to science,' particularly concerning the influence of populist politics on advisory councils in the Netherlands. She highlights a shift in power dynamics, where scientific insights are challenged by alternative facts, especially on social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter).
Damstra describes the work of scientific advisory councils as a balancing act, requiring both independence and relevance to policymakers. The increasing politicization of advice, exemplified by the response to the Council of State's critique of Minister Faber's asylum plans, poses significant challenges. This highlights the risk of undermining fundamental democratic principles.
Damstra also points to the problematic case of the Migration Advisory Council, which was not consulted by the minister despite its legal mandate. The minister's limited and rushed consultation signaled a devaluation of expert advice.
Damstra emphasizes the crucial role of scientific knowledge in addressing societal challenges. While acknowledging the importance of political decision-making, she cautions against instances where scientific advice becomes overly influential, as seen during the COVID-19 crisis.
The use of scientific research to delay difficult political decisions is also mentioned, citing the example of the RIVM's long-standing warnings about goat farms and lung diseases, contrasted with the government's reluctance to act on the Health Council's advice on reducing pesticides.
Damstra suggests that knowledge institutions and advisory councils must maintain their independence while effectively communicating their findings. She stresses that political receptiveness to advice is essential, highlighting the difficulties posed by populist politics and the weaponization of doubt to challenge the integrity of truth-seeking institutions.
Ultimately, Damstra suggests that if governments are unreceptive, reports can still hold value for various stakeholders. The Migration Advisory Council's actions, publishing their advice despite the minister's lack of engagement, are presented as a positive example of standing firm.