Philosophy

Despite no longer working in academia, I still regularly find myself walking into the Aula in Nijmegen. I am fortunate enough to attend the doctoral defences of former colleagues and friends on a frequent basis. These typically involve molecular chemistry – organic, systems or biochemistry – where the examiners invariably sink their teeth into minutiae. A misplaced comma in a figure, a mechanism that proceeds ever so slightly differently, a statement the examiner deems incorrect. It often feels as though the candidate is being tested on knowledge the examiner mastered long ago.

Recently, however, I attended a defence just outside my comfort zone: environmental chemistry, where models and computers replace the fume cupboard. I anticipated yet another barrage of technical questions. Instead, I witnessed something far more valuable: a substantive discussion of genuine depth.

After all, a thesis is already reviewed by three experts prior to the defence. The purpose of a defence lies not in yet another round of corrections, but in examining understanding. Does the candidate grasp the broader picture? Can they situate their work within a wider societal context, think through the implications, and engage in philosophical sparring with the examiners?

On the podium, I watched a scientist being treated as an equal; someone who had demonstrated their ability to hold their own amongst fellow doctors. As far as I am concerned, that sentiment ought to become the norm across every chemical discipline.