All in for Safety and Security

Security challenges often involve illegal activities, making them difficult to investigate. But a more general challenge is that safety & security has become an umbrella term. We must critically assess whether a topic really is a safety & security issue, why that is the case, and if such labelling helps to clarify and solve a problem. The label determines how the municipal council will act on our report’s findings. If we label something to be a security issue then, for the time being, the council will treat it as such. When researching algorithm use, for instance, we approached this from a risk perspective. We could have approached it from an efficiency standpoint as well.

The idea of prevention that is behind Safe & Sustainable by Design is so logical, it hardly needs explaining. The biggest challenge is to make it work. It takes a wealth of technical knowledge to be able to assess the potential hazards of a chemical substance. We need to bring all this knowledge from various disciplines together and improve on it where necessary. How to manage this and who will be the knowledge holder? At the same time, this preventive approach also requires a system change. We’ll need to convince companies that this is a good idea. They may readily assume it will hinder innovation, while I believe it will help promote a more constructive discourse on innovation.

In the academic world, safety & security are two largely separate topics, with each their own researchers, conferences, and scientific journals. This is problematic for assessing safety & security risks, and very inconvenient for the Court of Audit which is very much practice-oriented. We need to find the right expert for each specific safety & security issue. It would help us a lot if this could be organized in a more interdisciplinary manner. We can then enter into a partnership with a single interdisciplinary academic research institute for any topic that touches on safety & security – such as subversive crime, digital security, or climate safety.

In an ideal world, preventive consideration of the potential safety risks posed by new substances and materials is deeply ingrained in society. It wouldn’t only be a priority for the government, but also for the parties that develop the substances and bring them to market. This is not to point the finger at industry; the world has evolved the way it has. But we already know so much about chemical substances, and we already have various models for that. Preventive consideration is no fantasy, it is very much feasible. Next to technical aspects, universities also play an important role regarding the social scientific aspects. Take governance, for instance – what are the roles and responsibilities in a system that prioritizes prevention?

The challenge with technology is that positive expectations always outpace acknowledgment of the associated risks. First the promises and only much later – and often to the surprise of technology developers – the risk debate. But you can’t have one without the other. The fire-retardant properties of asbestos were undisputed, but it came with enormous health risks. When I worked at the Dutch Safety Board, we didn’t wait for automation in road traffic to lead to major accidents. Rather, we scrutinised research into near accidents and indicated that risk assessment was inadequate. And at the Court of Audit, in the report on the use of algorithms, we specifically examined whether organisation of the risk side matched that of the promises

The approach of Safe & Sustainable by Design can be applied at various levels of abstraction – including emerging technologies such as nanotechnology, advanced materials, or synthetic biology. At the moment, however, it is primarily being developed for chemical substances. A key technological advancement is the use of AI to make predictions – based on existing knowledge – about substances with (slightly) differing chemical structures. Companies use this to understand the characteristic properties and potential harm of a substance. Focussing on safety, the latter is of particular importance to us. We want to understand this knowledge development so that we, as a government, can assess the working of these AI models and the reliability of the outcomes they produce.

Many universities appear not to realise that there are Courts of Audit that house excellent researchers doing similar work. We may be small in size, but our research does make the headlines. Moreover, city councils have the statutory duty to discuss it and the executive board must come up with a response. Put simply, societal impact is intrinsic to our work and valorisation is a core product. And where academic researchers may spend months negotiating for access to data, we simply put in a request. These aspects make it highly interesting to collaborate with a Court of Audit for any academic researcher whose knowledge is relevant to a specific municipality, major cities, and beyond. In return, we get easy access to scientific journals.

Tremendous progress has been made in the field of chemical substance hazards. As a scientific government institute, we need to be informed about these developments. That is not something we can do on our own, nor should we want to. We therefore collaborate with numerous academic partners, such as TU Delft, Wageningen University & Research, and Leiden University, as well as many international knowledge partners. The questions and perspectives of industry and other societal partners are important too. All this shared knowledge is needed to come up with an effective prevention approach. Their contribution is also essential in bringing about a system change towards a new safety mindset.

I often describe myself as an experienced researcher-administrator. And I enjoy research that not only is of benefit to society, but that is essential to society. With my background in engineering, I have an above average interest in technology, which comes in handy in safety & security matters. But it’ certainly not only engineers at the Court of Audit. Sociologists, anthropologists, historians, public administration specialists, criminologists – you can pretty much have any scientific background and work at the municipal Court of Audit.

I studied physical chemistry and then entered the field of safety of hazardous substances. This involved both substantive work and policy work. In my current role, I no longer need to fully understand all the technical details. But to effectively manage the research, I need to grasp the main concepts. It helps to have a background in the exact sciences as it prevents one from getting lost in the world of toxicologists and chemists.

The NFI, the Dutch knowledge and expertise centre for forensic research, contributes to truth-finding in (inter)national criminal investigations through applied research, knowledge transfer, and innovation. Scientific investigations include DNA and fibre analysis, decoding digital information, and many other things. Innovation encompasses technological advancements that can enhance forensic research as well as developments in other knowledge domains that can be of value to the forensic process. Moreover, innovation is not only initiated in response to past and current events, but also aimed at developing forensic techniques for tomorrow’s pressing issues. The team of Annemieke de Vries coordinates, aligns and supports the innovation efforts both within the NFI and with external partners.

The Rotterdam Court of Audit is an independent scientific research institute at the municipal level. It conducts qualitative research into the policies pursued by the Rotterdam municipal council – which includes the responsibilities related to promoting safety & security. In recent years, the Court of Audit has conducted investigations into topics such as subversive crime, traffic safety, and the use of algorithms. The research also extends to the risks of public policies on the energy transition and climate change (such as water safety and heat stress). The research is mostly evaluative in nature, but the reports always provide forward-looking recommendations. It is then up to the municipal council to determine how the executive board of Mayor and Aldermen should act.

The Police uphold the law, maintain public order, provide aid, and conduct criminal investigations. Crime prevention is on their list of tasks as well. The Dutch police are world class in some areas of expertise, such as cybercrime and encrypted messaging (EncroChat and SKyECC, for instance). The department of Science & Technology keeps a close eye on relevant technological developments. What are the potential threats and opportunities related to these developments and how may these impact the organisation? These assessments are made internally as well as in close collaboration with European agencies, knowledge institutes, and partners in the chain in other countries. An important secondary appointment of Sven Hamelink therefore is his chairmanship of the European Clearing Board – which focuses on developing and exchanging tools and methods for crime investigation.

Jaco Westra is Coordinator Safe and Sustainable by Design within the Environmental and Safety domein at the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). The research he coordinates focuses on safety and sustainability, covering both scientific and policy aspects. It is strongly prevention oriented; the goal is to prevent that the development of new (chemical) substances and materials may increase the safety risks for humans and the environment. Next to substances, it also applies to new processes, installations, and systems. Rather than assessing individual substances, the focus lies on developing widely applicable instruments, such as a toolbox that companies can use for early-stage assessment of the harmfulness of a substance or material under development. This research aims to prevent health risks similar to those caused by substances such as PFAS and chromium (VI).