COMMENTARY - Academic freedom is at risk: Self-criticism and self-confidence are now required in Europe

Science enjoys a unique privilege: At universities and research institutes, scientists and students have the opportunity to choose the topics they work on and are allowed to discuss them very openly. This academic freedom is one of the most precious achievements of Western democracies. But in many countries, it is in danger of being undermined, most recently in the United States.

To prevent science in Europe from also going down a slippery slope, a lot of change is needed here. More self-confidence externally, but also more self-criticism internally, is needed. Politicians should raise their awareness of the great value of science to society.

There is no denying it: academic freedom is becoming increasingly restricted in many countries: governments are banning unwanted studies; open, even critical, discussions at universities are being stifled more often than before.

This is particularly true in authoritarian countries. But democracies are not spared from this downward trend either. The governments of India, Hungary, and Turkey, for example, have repeatedly hamstrung science in recent years. Undesirable researchers have been dismissed or even arrested.

The global role model for science, however, is the United States. No other country has produced more Nobel laureates, and nowhere else has so many successful companies emerged from academia. But the new American administration is exerting enormous pressure on universities and other research institutions. Funding is being frozen or cut, studies are being halted, employees are being laid off, and new language regulations are being enforced. An atmosphere of uncertainty has emerged.

Some of the measures can be interpreted as an attempt to reverse politically motivated tendencies in science. A movement that claims to be progressive began to undermine academic freedom from within a few years ago.

This movement attempted to use moralistic arguments to curtail freedom of speech and discussion in its own interests. Human resources policy had to address ideologically motivated demands. When filling positions, for example, criteria such as diversity and equality had to be considered in addition to professional qualifications.

With its current measures, however, Washington is going far beyond mere correction. Categorically excluding certain topics from research—such as sustainable construction or the Hispanic minority—clearly violates academic freedom. The government thus threatens to cause serious damage to American science and its reputation. The demand to guarantee the safety of all university students, however, is entirely understandable.

In the United States, respect and trust between science and politics have been partially lost. The debate has become polarized. To put it bluntly: populists in America are waging a kind of vendetta against science, which, in turn, is entrenching itself in a wagon train. The public is left confused and will likely only realize the damage at a later date.

Europe should notice the warning lights in time and – where necessary – change course.

A relationship of trust between science and politics, especially between science and political forces on the fringes, is essential. For a long time, the West has not fundamentally questioned academic freedom. As a result, its vulnerability has been somewhat forgotten. But there are no guarantees for eternity.

Science lacks a strong lobby and has little leverage. This is especially true for basic research: If, for example, the physicists at CERN in Geneva went on strike, no one would notice. Even the consequences of gaps in applied research would often only become apparent after years. The meaning and purpose of science are often hidden and only reveal themselves after prolonged observation.

Researchers are therefore heavily dependent on the goodwill of society and politics. Scientific independence must be well-founded.

Academic freedom is not just about ensuring the benefits of research for society; that would be too narrow a definition. It's not just about fighting cancer, building rockets, or developing new materials.

Academic freedom also serves to defend a culture of curiosity and critical reasoning, which is essential to our countries. It was once enforced, in the Age of Enlightenment, against the power claims of the churches and the nobility.

Of course, science must be limited, even by external constraints: we do not want to research everything we could research.

We recoil at the unrestrained manipulation of genes before a child's birth, for example. Anyone who develops and tests new chemical substances must follow strict guidelines. Of course, it remains a political decision whether funds should be allocated to certain, particularly expensive research areas. Not every particle accelerator that elementary particle physicists desire will be built.

But the state should not be allowed to abuse science to ensure that it only delivers what politicians want to hear. If experts warn about the risks of climate change or a pandemic, the response should not be to close their institutes. Rather, politicians must leave the autonomy of science intact, even if they don't like the results.

Openness to results is an essential characteristic of scientific research, and it must remain so. However, in order to convincingly defend this value against the state, science must demonstrate more clearly that it also makes academic freedom the benchmark of its actions internally.

Science must therefore do two things: firstly, when defending the independence of research vis-à-vis governments, it must explain the value of academic freedom even better than before; secondly, for the sake of its credibility, it must pay greater attention to protecting academic freedom at home.

If, for example, a scientist wants to explain why – from a biological perspective – there are only two gender categories, then this should definitely be allowed and protected. It should be a given that universities allow discussions even on theses that are heavily criticized by activists in public. They should even encourage these discussions. After all, this is the purpose for which academic freedom was once fought for.

But science should also more confidently defend its intrinsic value and appeal to skeptics. Cultivating open-ended research and a culture of academic curiosity and enthusiasm for debate should be important to all of us.

The temptation to curtail academic freedom is not only great in authoritarian states. Even in democracies, politicians will have to be kept under constant scrutiny. Politicians have a responsibility to protect academic freedom from the outside, and science has a responsibility to breathe life into it from within.