One moment you’re running a faculty at a middle-sized university in the region, the next moment you’re one of the leaders of the country’s main research organisation. Stan Gielen looks back on his first year as president of NWO, the largest research organisation in the Netherlands, distributing millions of euros to researchers every year. ‘It’s great to be flying so close to the flame of research policy in the Netherlands.’

It’s hard to catch Stan Gielen in a bad mood; his smile seems to have been chiselled on his face. This kind of attitude can easily be explained if you have a fairly relaxed job as head of the science faculty in Nijmegen – where Gielen was in charge for the last six years. But when we visit the man who since October of last year has occupied the ‘greatest horrible job of the Netherlands’, we expected to find a slightly more tired, less cheerful President. All the more since at 64, he is no longer a spring chicken. But no. In the most beautiful apartment of the NWO block district, Gielen receives us as the lively man we have always known: the same smile, the same boyish appearance. ‘How are things in Nijmegen?’

Your predecessor Jos Engelen once called the NWO presidency ‘The greatest horrible job of the Netherlands’. Why would a man of 63 choose to take on a position with so many pitfalls (see box: The changing face of NWO)?
‘I don’t feel that old. Anyway, this was not the position I originally applied for. And it may have something to do with my Catholic upbringing: I was taught to make use of the talents God gave me. It makes me feel good to be able to do something for others.’

Your friend Peter Zuidema had hoped to start a philosophical art project with you. Another one of your talents, but it seems you found NWO more important?
‘That’s right. I make music, I practised athletics at a reasonably high level. Life is full of fun things. But I especially hoped to take my academic career one step further.’

Where did this urge come from?
‘Research needs a boost. I am not the only person who can do it; others may be more suitable, but they were unable or unwilling to take on this presidency. I have clear ideas about how research should be conducted, and when I was asked, I decided to put them into practice.’

So the art project with Peter has been put on hold?
‘Yes. I signed for four years, with an option for a one-year extension. Peter and Janet will understand. Peter, who recently retired, was very keen to get started. But we have known each other for forty years, so that friendship is not likely to go away.’

‘He is flourishing again,’ said your wife about the past year. She says after six years as a Dean in Nijmegen you’d had enough: ‘It had become routine, with too little challenge.’ Were you fed up with Nijmegen?
‘It sounds blasé, but there is a grain of truth in it: the faculty was doing well, and then there comes a time when you have to make room for new people. Even the most successful of football trainers will be replaced one day. It’s good that there is now new life in Nijmegen.’

Your wife is once again impressed with your ‘potential for growth’ over the past year. ‘Where will this end? I just hope he won’t become Senate Member next.’
‘I can reassure her: in four or five years, I’ll be done. Then we can get started on the music project.’

Scientific research in turmoil

Gielen’s first year as president coincided with growing opposition to research. At the opening of the academic year, Radboud University Rector Han van Krieken expressed his concern about undermining the scientific method, a problem that is being stirred up by President Donald Trump dismissing scientifically proven facts as nonsense and deleting them from websites. On 22 April, researchers joined forces in The Hague for the March for Science: a protest rally to underline the importance of scientific research. Stan Gielen was there on the Malieveld in The Hague, together with Han van Krieken and other prominent figures in the Dutch research world.

‘He was there on the podium, but not at the front. Typical Stan,’ said Peter Zuidema. Do you recognise yourself in this description?
‘It’s true that I don’t find it easy to appear in the foreground. But if I don’t agree with something, I will let you know. There were enough influential people already on that podium in The Hague.’

Why did you join the protest rally?
‘Scientific research can only flourish if there is freedom of movement for persons and ideas. You have to be able to discuss things with each other, keep each other on your toes, and make use of each other’s tools.’

At what point did you feel that this ideal was being threatened?
‘A clear warning sign came at the official opening I did of Virgo, in Pisa. This new installation for research on gravity ways required enormous investments, and we need to make optimal use of it. This can only happen if the best people are put in charge of measurements. The opening took place two weeks after Trump had issued his ban on travellers from Islamic countries, and although I didn’t mention him directly in my speech, I did express my concerns. Afterwards, the Polish Vice-Minister came to me and said: ‘You really can’t say such things, you know!’ That scared me.’

What scared you?
‘That even an EU country like Poland would not automatically endorse my call for free movement. I understand that I should not be too politically involved. NWO must conform to government policy. For example, if the March for Science had been a purely political rally, NWO would not have been able to join in.’

In The Hague you did not carry a banner. If you had, what would it have said?
‘I have to think about it.’ A few days later, Gielen sends me an e-mail: ‘NWO for independent research.’

1 billion extra

As president of the largest apolitical scientific organisation in the Netherlands, his position happens to be extremely political: Dutch scientific research is faced with the challenge of attracting €1 billion extra in the new coalition agreement, which will require quite some political flexibility on Gielen’s part. Together with the Association of universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) and the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), NWO forms a national ‘coalition for knowledge’ that tries to convince political parties in the new government to release these funds.

‘Joining forces is crucial if we want to get this 1 billion,’ says Wim van Saarloos, Vice President of KNAW. Are you optimistic?
‘Moderately optimistic: we may get a little less. But aside from the money, a good distribution is also important: half of it should go to public-private funding of research. The best news of the past year is that NWO has been put in charge of coordinating how this part of the money is spent.’

You talked to all the parties, I’ve been told. You know all the ins and outs of this new government?
‘There is formal and informal contact. Through my contacts, I was recently able to submit an important A4 with our views to Alexander Pechtold. Earlier on, I also spoke to D66 about their planned transfer of NWO and KNAW institutes to the universities. Luckily they could see the point of my criticism.’

Van Saarloos called you a ‘typical science administrator’: ‘He understands things faster than other people, and therefore runs the risk of listening less carefully.’ This is something you should work on if you want to be effective in The Hague, he says.
‘That’s a very good observation on Wim’s part. It is one of my weak points. I am working hard to change it.’

What did this past year teach you?
‘To not be so solution-oriented, but instead to first think: why is the other person saying this? What’s behind this? For example, Janet and I were going cycling for a day in the Reichswald. Before we left, Janet said: ‘Let’s go back to the Waalkade for lunch.’ I immediately felt stung: that wasn’t the agreement, we said we were going to the Reichswald. A totally wrong approach, I can see that now. What I should have done is ask Janet why she had changed her mind. I really have to learn to not react so fast.’

Peter Zuidema warns you about the The Hague milieu: ‘They don’t deal well with people who say what they think.’ Did The Hague surprise you?
‘The greatest surprise was lack of knowledge of scientific research among the spokespeople for higher education. One of them didn’t even know the difference between NWO and KNAW. The lack of knowledge of what goes on in the scientific world really surprised me. No, I cannot give you an example; it would be traceable to the person in question.’

A spokesperson who denies the climate problem?
‘No, it wasn’t that bad.’

Has Trump poisoned the Dutch political climate? And reduced the odds of getting that 1 billion?
‘No, I did not see any signs of contempt for science among the coalition parties. Lack of knowledge, yes, and this is something that we should be concerned about. If all transport companies were to go on strike tomorrow, the entire country would grind to a halt. But if the universities go on strike, nothing much will happen in the short term. We need communicators to explain what scientific research is about and what it is for. Luckily there are people like Robbert Dijkgraaf.’

You are also on the front line. What is your role in the coalition for knowledge?
‘I am one of the generals. With a strong army of NWO employees behind me.’

Shortly before you took office, you mentioned in Vox that one of your tasks was to clean up the NWO office. You felt that you could do with fewer people. This statement led to a storm of criticism.
‘Yes. It was not very diplomatic to put it in Vox like that. Later on I had a good talk with the works council, and since then we have developed mutual trust.’

According to the NRC State Secretary Dekker reprimanded you in person.
‘Well, someone from the ministry expressed dissatisfaction on Dekker’s behalf. That was a lesson.’

Time-consuming grant applications

When he was appointed Gielen promised to reform the grant system, which he saw as much too opaque and time-consuming: researchers spend many hours on applications which other researchers then spend at least as much time assessing. And 85% of these efforts are futile: no grant. ‘In some grant rounds, the acceptance rate is only 4%!’ exclaimed Gielen last year in Vox. Halfway through April, the research community met in Amsterdam to consider a new and better system, a milestone for the President.

On the wall in the NWO head office hangs a meter-long illustration with ideas by the researchers who attended this conference, including winner of the Spinoza Award Marten Scheffer. He is quoted as saying ‘Let researchers themselves point to the person or project they want research money to go to.’

At the conference Scheffer pleaded for a rigorous new distribution model: let the research community itself distribute grants. Gone the useless applications, gone the time-consuming assessment procedures. What do you think, is this a good idea?
‘First of all: every method that results in less hassle without endangering the quality of research proposals has my blessing. But VENI grants are sometimes awarded to beautiful plans by researchers nobody has ever heard of. If researchers are going to distribute the money themselves, there is a risk that the money will stay in well-known networks. How to avoid favouritism, that’s the question.’

Scheffer proposes to explore these objections by means of an experiment.
‘That can be done, but it would require €50 to €100 million. NWO does not have that much disposable income. This means we would have to reach an agreement with other parties, especially with the universities.’

‘It is in the interest of Dutch science that universities have a single voice’

Another proposal involved universities making their own pre-selection for NWO grants, thus reducing the odds of unsuccessful applications.
‘This I am completely in favour of, but it’s up to the universities. I know that some universities are aware of how undesirable it is to let dozens of researchers work for days on an application that has very little chance of being accepted.’

We heard from Wim van Saarloos that you are critical of so-called ‘collaborating’ universities. You supposedly said that ‘the greatest enemy of the VSNU are the universities themselves.’
‘That’s right. And I would like to once again publicly reiterate this: it is in the interest of Dutch science that universities have a single voice to represent them to the outside world. As far as application pressure is concerned, it is really essential that universities themselves take the time to better pre-select applications. The VSNU recognises the importance of this, and I also hear positive things from the universities themselves, for example from Nijmegen.’

The government is also talking about a new grant system. What can we expect?
‘Dekker wants to assess applications on knowledge valorisation. If the applicant has already contributed to valorisation in the past, he or she will have a higher chance of being awarded a grant. We are now discussing this with Dekker: how do you measure this kind of past performance? And which subsidies specifically are subject to this criterion? I don’t think it’s a good idea for VENI grants, meant for young researchers.’ After an hour and a half, the spokesperson calls for a last question. Gielen’s next appointment is waiting.

You wife has expressed her concern: ‘Will Stan manage to keep this up until he is 68?’
‘Yes. It can be difficult at times, but it brings such beautiful things. The broad support for NWO, the collaboration in the coalition for knowledge. I am prepared to take some hurdles to reap such rewards.’

Your administrative assistant Jet van ’t Woudt is amazed. ‘Where does Stan get his energy from: always working late, always in a good mood, always ready for a chat.’ What’s your secret?
‘The energy I get from this work. I am flying closer to the flame than ever, and I get to shape the contribution of science to urgent social problems.’