This essay is based on an article Résistons à la politisation de la science published in French in Le Point on 23 November 2025 by Henri Atlan, Andreas Bikfalvi, Hervé Chneiweiss, and Nathalie Heinich (archived here).
Researchers warn against the growing intrusion of ideological criteria into the evaluation, dissemination, and teaching of knowledge. They call on the scientific community to defend its autonomy and the integrity of scientific enterprise.
Resisting ideological intrusion into academia and scientific publishing
In an open letter titled “Why I no longer engage with Nature Publishing Group,” published on October 24, Anna Krylov—a leading American chemist—announced that she would no longer review manuscripts for Springer (publisher of Nature). The publisher had requested that its journals incorporate criteria of diversity, equity, and inclusion into the evaluation of cited authors—thereby undermining scientific merit, which must remain the sole determinant of scholarly selection.
Similarly, one of the authors of this op-ed published a letter in The Lancet opposing the politicization of biomedical research advanced by the journal’s editor-in-chief (A. Bikfalvi, “Medicine should not engage in a war of position,” The Lancet, 19 August 2023).
In recent years, academics have also protested refusals to award scientific prizes or to honor invitations extended to internationally recognized researchers solely because of their nationality or perceived association with governments whose policies are contested—even when those same researchers are vocal opponents of those policies. Today Israeli researchers and universities face unprecedented wave of boycotts. For instance, nearly one thousand scientists have signed a petition calling on CERN, the world’s leading particle physics laboratory, to reconsider its cooperation with Israel.
Resisting the authoritarian takeover of academia
At the same time, many scientists have mobilized to defend science against attacks by the Trump administration since its return to power: questioning scientific expertise on climate change, the Covid-19 pandemic, and environmental regulation; sidelining scientists from decision-making processes; and censoring or downplaying their reports. Under the pretext of combating the ideological capture of scientific institutions, federal funding has been blocked, research programs jeopardized, and the training of new scientists undermined through political interference in the admission of foreign students.
Both progressive activism within academia and political interventions from the right now threaten the independence of research.
Science aims neither to seduce nor to serve power
We encourage all forms of resistance to the intrusion of ideology into scientific activity—intrusions that arise from multiple directions. Causes that may be virtuous in the realm of politics have no place in determining the production and transmission of knowledge, which are the sole missions of research and higher education.
While societal values—such as the social relevance of research topics or ethical responsibility in scientific conduct—undeniably play a role in shaping scientific practice, the core values of the academic world are epistemic: the pursuit of truth, objectivity, methodological rigor, transparency, reproducibility, and integrity. These are the foundations of the credibility of science. They distinguish science from other forms of expertise and ensure that results are reliable and universally valid—resistant to reduction into the “situated knowledges” promoted by contemporary relativist and deconstructionist epistemologies, heirs to the Stalinist denunciations of “bourgeois science.”
Science aims neither to seduce nor to serve power. It’s strength lies in its independence from politics and intellectual fashions.
A call to action
Defending the integrity of scientific inquiry requires vigilance and collective resolve. The scientific community must assert the principles of open inquiry, unbiased evaluation, and open discourse, ensuring that ideas are judged solely on their merit—not on political alignment, identity categories, or shifting ideological currents.
By fortifying the norms of rigorous peer review, advocating for autonomy in education, publication and funding decisions, and fostering environments where dissent, skepticism, and debate are welcome, researchers safeguard the reliability and universality of scientific knowledge. This commitment to autonomy ensures that science continues to serve society as a reliable source of knowledge, capable of addressing complex challenges through evidence and reason, rather than succumbing to the pressures of partisanship and activism. By strengthening collaborative networks and advocating for robust standards in publication, education, and funding, scientists can safeguard the pursuit of truth and maintain the universality that sets science apart from other domains of human endeavor.
Facing attacks from both sides of the political spectrum, we therefore urge our colleagues to resist all forms of political interference—whether emerging from government pressure, institutional mandates, or grass-root academic movements. We call on scientific publishers to firmly guard their institutions against subverting their noble mission by politics, moralizing demands, and ideological tests.
Looking ahead, the resilience of science depends on our collective determination to uphold the standards that define the pursuit of knowledge, especially during times when societal pressures threaten to cloud objectivity. By renewing our commitment to methodological rigor, unbiased evaluation, and open debate, we preserve science’s role as a universal and reliable, evidence-based guide in a rapidly changing world. In this spirit, we invite all members of the academic and research communities to firmly defend the values that lie at the heart of scientific endeavor. Only by doing so can we ensure that the search for truth remains unencumbered by external agendas and faithful to its mission of serving society.
Henri Atlan, philosopher and biologist, emeritus director of studies at EHESS, Paris
Andreas Bikfalvi, biomedical scientist and philosopher, emeritus professor at the University of Bordeaux
Hervé Chneiweiss, neurologist, emeritus research director at CNRS, Paris
Nathalie Heinich, sociologist, emeritus research director at CNRS, Paris
Originally published in French in Le Point (Résistons à la politisation de la science, November 23, 2025) and archived here. The translation was prepared with help of ChatGPT. Anna Krylov assisted with editing.
 | A guest post by
|
The actions of the Trump administration are largely in concert with the goals and ideals expressed by the author, although the implementation is somewhat ham-handed. Without strong, decisive prodding the various scientific organizations and institutions are very unlikely to change - witness the outcry when funding is withheld and the re-branding of CEI at Cornell, Stanford, Harvard, etc. in an attempt to evade accountability.
I would add that scientists should avoid making political statements. While we have a role to play in policymaking, our role should not be dominant. Every single policy must necessarily include other, coequal considerations, such as economics and sociology. Scientists themselves have, intentionally or unwittingly, contributed to the politicization of science by entangling themselves in politics.