Professor social psychology Roos Vonk caused a fuss by comparing intensive livestock farming with the Holocaust. Did her activism take the better of her? Are scientists bound to boundaries in showing their activism? Three scientists who sometimes climb the barricades react. 'Take science's reputation into account.'

Pieter Leroy: ‘Activism should not hinder science’
‘I have signed petitions against nuclear energy, and have called on the government to end the use of coal power stations. Me and many of my colleagues think that they have to be shut down as soon as possible, based on a lot of scientific knowledge. You can speak up about that, if your comments do not hinder your work as a scientist. You can judge these statements by the effect they have on the public, for which Vonk has apparently already been reprimanded, and by the possible damage they do to your reputation as a scientist.

You have to be careful. As a environmental expert, I have to stay open to the possibility that nuclear energy is good after all, if advancing insight shows that. Or to the possibility that, after a smart invention, coal power stations can stay open. As scientists we have to stay engaged in the public debate, but your activism can never get in the way of how serious people take you as a scientist. With statements that go to far, you not only risk your personal reputation, but also the reputation of your discipline, of science, and of the university. With that, you miss the point completely.’
Pieter Leroy is professor in Environmental sciences

Els Rommes: ‘The scientific part has to be in order’
‘It is definitely possible to be scientist and activist at the same time. I want to feel at home in the research that I do, this can be about the environment, or subordinated groups in society. My activism feeds my scientific work, and the other way around. As an activist, I like to apply my competences, for example by writing a policy plan for COC, or organising debates during a lesbian festival. The other way around I find out, by being engaged in society, what science might miss, for example attention for sexual and other abuse in the pedagogy curriculum. I have made an effort to change that.

Of course I hope that my research results cause change. That change can occur on world level, but also in my own work environment. For example, research shows that we prefer people who look like us when we hire people. So I try to take that into account when I have a vacancy. I do know the temptation you feel when you come across results that do not fit your own views. But you can compromise on this. That is what I find interesting about science: you always have to show the other side. If I read something and I think “I do not want to read this and I do not want to show it to my students”, I try to find out if it is good scientific research and if so, I do use it in my teaching. Students can probably read my opinion when I teach, but that is ok for me. The scientific part has to be in order. And if you practice good science, you show the pros and cons of your opinion.’
Els Rommes is associated with the Institute for Gender Studies

Kolar Aparna: ‘Sometimes, scientists have to take a stand’
‘Personally, I do not think we should make an artificial division between science and activism, knowledge and action. Those two things should always be in dialogue with each other. However, academics should have the freedom to distance themselves in a polarised public debate, but who you are, where you are and how you position yourself in the world always influences what you do. It is not easy to confront this, but one must at least try. For me, this means constantly confronting myself with the thought that science is personal and the personal is always political, and yet, always changing because learning never stops. I learn by doing and reflecting on my mistakes and blindspots, and be open about them rather to pretend to know everything. Here at the university, I sometimes call myself an activist on purpose, to call for more activism to overcome this divide. The division between the two things is spacial: scientists try to change our thinking from within the campus, activists from society.

As scientists, we have to take our responsibility, because science has actual consequences in society. Even more so today, I think we are at a crucial point in history again. Europe’s borders are polarised by nationalism, and transnationalism solidarity movements and citizenship practices. Another dimension is the question of accountability and funding. When I attend conferences in which people receive massive grants for their research without even reflecting on what might be the political consequences of such knowledge, it angers me. Policy makers could use research results to justify unjust policies. When that happens, you have to take a stand as a scientist. My views on this do not get me into trouble here, in fact we at the geography department take this debate seriously, even if we might not agree on how we might approach these questions.’
Kolar Aparna is a Geography PhD student