Rector Sarah de Rijcke: academic freedom makes reliable knowledge possible
Opinion piece in Nature
Governments and research funders are intervening in universities with increasing frequency, often in the name of safeguarding quality. In an opinion piece published in Nature, Rector Magnificus Sarah de Rijcke sets out six principles for assessing when legitimate steering turns into the undermining of academic freedom.
The ability to conduct independent enquiry is under pressure in a growing number of countries, De Rijcke writes. In the United States, for example, funding in areas such as climate science and gender research is being curtailed. In Europe, Budapest’s Central European University was previously driven out of Hungary. According to De Rijcke, one question keeps returning: when governments or funders intervene in universities, do they strengthen or weaken the checks that make knowledge trustworthy? Through her six principles, she aims to provide a practical framework for determining where legitimate steering of a publicly funded system ends and interference with independent knowledge begins.
Quality as the starting point
De Rijcke reverses the usual line of reasoning: rather than starting with the right to academic freedom, she begins with the responsibility of universities to produce reliable knowledge. Academic freedom and institutional autonomy are the conditions that make this possible. She warns that quality is often invoked as a reason to limit freedom, whereas the real test is whether a measure strengthens or weakens independent scrutiny. She also argues for preserving room for curiosity-driven research whose value cannot be demonstrated in advance. As an example, De Rijcke points to COVID-19 vaccines, which were made possible by decades of work on messenger RNA. For many years, the societal relevance of that research was far from obvious.
Democratic infrastructure
De Rijcke also describes universities as part of a society’s democratic infrastructure, alongside the judiciary, the press and civil society. She points to Hungary as an example of how that role can come under pressure but also highlights developments closer to home: in 2025, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) warned about the consequences of budget cuts and proposed screening legislation, while Dutch university rectors cautioned against a growing political tendency to steer the content of scientific debate and teaching.
De Rijcke also reflects on how academic freedom should be balanced against other legitimate concerns. Research security and openness, she argues, should be treated as a single responsibility, with any restrictions being specific, proportionate and limited in time. She further emphasises that academic freedom is an individual right that requires universities to protect researchers from pressures arising in and beyond the institution. Finally, she calls on universities to earn the trust on which their autonomy rests, including through clear and open communication and a willingness to look critically at themselves.
The full opinion piece, ‘Six principles for supporting academic freedom in universities’, can be read on the Nature website.