Sometimes an opinion piece is carefully planned. This was not one of those times; it was written in the moment when the need for another perspective became immediately clear.
The opinion piece article was written in response to Dutch news coverage celebrating the Tulip Fund, a €50 million initiative that has already attracted several researchers from the United States to the Netherlands. While the media highlighted the success of the programme and the importance of supporting colleagues whose academic freedom is under pressure, both Swinda Falkena and I immediately felt that an important part of the story was missing—a part we had been discussing since the fund was actively considered by our own university.
We argue that while attracting international talent is valuable, the Tulip Fund risks reinforcing existing inequalities within Dutch academia. By focusing substantial resources on recruiting researchers from abroad, the programme overlooks the structural challenges faced by early-career researchers already working in the Netherlands, such as job insecurity, limited funding opportunities, and a lack of long-term prospects.
What started as a short WhatsApp conversation quickly turned into something much bigger. During her lunch break, Swinda began writing down her thoughts. Throughout the afternoon, we exchanged drafts, refined the wording, and carefully balanced criticism with nuance. We wanted to make one thing absolutely clear: this was never an argument against supporting researchers from abroad. Rather, we wanted to show how the Tulip Fund is part of a much deeper structural problem in Dutch academia—one that has affected early-career researchers for years.
By the end of the day, Swinda submitted the article to de Volkskrant. The following day, it was published. If only academic publishing could be that efficient, we joked afterwards.
Linda van Garderen 