Ignaz Semmelweis, a pioneer in antiseptic procedures, epitomizes the Semmelweis reflex, which is the tendency to reject new evidence that challenges established norms. His advocacy for handwashing among physicians before childbirth drastically reduced maternal mortality from about 18% to less than 2%. Despite these clear benefits, his findings faced hostility and disbelief from his elite and educated community. Semmelweis’s tragic end, isolated and beaten in an asylum, underscores the peril of challenging entrenched norms. This historical context invites a critical examination of similar resistance encountered in today’s academic community, particularly regarding social safety.
Reflecting on this resistance alongside today’s challenges in academia, a stark contrast emerges. Unlike Semmelweis’s time, when the causes of infections were unseen, today we often recognise both the causes and the effects of social safety issues. This raises a critical question: why did the academic community not address these issues sooner, before external intervention?
As academics dedicated to TU Delft’s mission of impacting society, we need to address our own inherent issues before we can make a difference in the wider community. Our inaction may inadvertently teach future engineers that self-interest is paramount, reinforcing the notion that those within the system are complacent, exploitative, or indifferent to necessary change due to their upbringing within a flawed system. Our preoccupation with reputation and rankings often blinds us to essential reforms, prioritizing appearance over genuine progress.
A truly successful system deeply respects its ethical mission
By failing to address our own defects, we cast doubt on our ability to effectively influence society and solve global problems. If our role as academics is merely to focus on our work without curiosity, empathy, or moral contemplation, then we should not be surprised if we are replaced by algorithms and artificial intelligence in the future.
This pervasive silence within the academic community, often stemming from fear of repercussions from superiors, competitive pressures, and a culture of individualism, exacerbates the problem. The silence, as worrying and counterproductive as any non-professional behaviour, is considered equivalent to complicity in some beliefs. As we strive for institutional loyalty, we must be wary of falling prey to Stockholm syndrome and in-group bias. If our primary role is not to identify and solve pressing issues, then the grand terms we parade, such as humanity, sustainability, and innovation, lose their significance.
The solution lies in cultivating a culture of justice, integrity, proactive foresight, and mutual support within academic communities, shifting the focus from denial and defence to collaborative problem-solving and innovation upon detecting anomalies or errors. This approach not only encourages a shift in recognition and rewards but also values contributions to continual improvement and ethical practices above mere academic achievement. By fostering a supportive and transparent community and attracting new talented individuals who uphold these values alongside academic achievement, academia can redefine the integration of new ideas and return to its foundational mission.
In such an environment, those who dare to innovate and challenge detrimental norms are championed, not victimized. A truly successful system deeply respects its ethical mission, motivating all members to participate actively in making impactful changes, and higher-level individuals to concentrate on creating policies that prevent problems rather than merely addressing issues when prompted by requests for help.
As academics who praise altruism and cherish wisdom, we are obliged to move beyond our reluctance and implement necessary reforms against undeniable, widespread challenges in our community. If we cannot emulate our pioneers, who were ready to drive forward with selfless progress, we must at least not remain passive. Let us break the silence and provide the proactive support needed. This is how we honour the legacy of our pioneers – not just as historians and philosophers but as active participants in shaping a just and responsive future.
Comments are closed.