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).
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.
Hi Andreas! Nice piece. I wish I could write something so pithy yet short that people will actually read it. This piece, which was written before I see this, can almost function as a companion essay:
"this post is about self-inflicted obstacles to reform. It is about the denialism that there even is a deep problem. It is about attempts to deflect attention from addressing the problems. It is about the handwringing, pearl-clutching timidity among some of those who, with one hand, claim to want reform, and, with the other, are constantly explaining why it can’t be done, or why now is not the right time to do it, or why the real concerning problem is something else entirely."
Thanks for the comment, just for your information, there is a divide between people who thinks science must be value free or value laden. I find myself in an intermediate position. Science is linked to values epistemically and socially, but the social values have not to impede on the epistemic values which must be protected.
Thank you so much for advancing the message to our scientific organizations and publishers: the resilience of science depends on our collective determination to uphold the standards that define the pursuit of knowledge.
“In Defense of Merit in Science” attests to the unshakable commitment and dedication of scientists who have advanced humanity. But, ay—there’s the rub: the dismantling of science, education, and democratic norms has continued at an accelerated rate. The root problem is the spread of disinformation and the resulting adoption of a new norm by academic faculty, institutions, and the press—a norm that increasingly accommodates falsehoods rather than correcting them.
If we truly believe in « Résistons à la politisation de la science », then we must revisit and rewrite our mission at Heterodox Academy to enact meaningful change. Doing so will require difficult but necessary steps.
Historically, medical science and practice clearly distinguished sound practice from malpractice. This concept has been widely adopted by other professions. We affirm our commitment to scientific methodology and rigorous peer review. We also recognize that the fabrication, teaching, or publication of untruths within academic and educational institutions—especially in the absence of self-correction—constitutes malpractice. Yet our call for broad faculty autonomy has made it difficult, and at times impossible, to ensure accountability to validated truth and to sustain rigorous, evidence-based debate.
We cannot easily reform ideology, bias, or the broader spread of disinformation in society. But we can restore scholarly discourse within the university. Let's begin there.
If you look at gender medicine, for instance, politicization is preventing rigorous evidence based practices from being implemented, instead, opinion (the least reliable form of medical evidence, there is the medical evidence-based pyramid) is taking priority, even in determining the positions of medical societies (American Medical Association, AAP, Endcorine Society). Needless to say, but happening anyhow, medical treatment based upon the opinion of MD's who make a living providing a certain treatment and don't follow up their patients...is not how medicine should be done. People are getting hurt.
There is a recent Health and Human Services report on gender medicine which is top notch (https://opa.hhs.gov/gender-dysphoria-report --no, RFK didn't write it, nor did AI, you can check their references yourself, and it passed peer review).
Most American MD's don't even know what is in it, not even what is in the executive summary of what they found (https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/gender-dysphoria-report-exec-summary.pdf ), including the rigorous findings of their umbrella review of systematic reviews of the evidence, or that it passed peer review (including a critique by the American Psychiatric Association which is easily rebutted by pointing to what was already in the report).
The journals similarly are mostly refusing corrections to incorrect articles. Incorrect articles abound, often claiming they want to help those who are transgender.
I suspect it is from a misguided belief in the journals that is it harmful, telling those who want medical gender interventions that the likely outcomes are unknown (including whether they will be likely to be beneficial or harmful long term) and that there are less harmful alternatives (also with unknown benefit, but harms appear to be much less). That also appears to be the reason why one of the groups that does medical recommendations ("WPATH") interfered with the rigorous evidence reviews they were going to use to support their recommendations. Those in WPATH wrote: "Our concerns, echoed by the social justice lawyers we spoke with, is that evidence based review reveals little or no evidence and puts us in an untenable position in terms of affecting policy or winning lawsuits.” https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/387/bmj.q2227.full.pdf -- peer reviewed investigative article, the Economist covered it too.
I don't understand why interfering with the Johns Hopkins evidence team's attempts to publish (documented in the above and in discovery for lawsuits, publicly available) was not a public scandal, especially as it concerns serious life-altering interventions for minors and other young people.
But unless you are following this topic, you likely have no idea this is happening.
It's a fallacy that scientists, and even more so, 'science' itself, are not political entities. Especially with government agencies being some of the largest funders of modern science.
Ukraine has created a distinctive form of politicisation of science—a nearly complete lack of state funding for basic research. No scientists' actions can change this situation. Deadlock.
DEI is getting a bad wrap and your cancelling Nature cause of some rule that suggests considerering DEI authors in making it to publication seems rather narrow minded and uninclussive of you all at Heterodox. If an article passes the peer evaluation review and the science is sound by the majority of screeners and changes and suggestions to make the article more sound have been met: what's the beef.
And including DEI criteria in science does nothing to advance science at best; and, at worst, it is corrosive to science because it involves (in the case of Nature) citing sources or making claims based on the demographics of the authors rather than the importance and rigor of their science. "Hey, look, we cited 7 indigenous authors!" is utterly irrelevant to most papers. And if particular indigenous authors have done something relevant? Great, cite it just like one cites anything else relevant.
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.
Exactly, like this guest poster have done here.
Hi Andreas! Nice piece. I wish I could write something so pithy yet short that people will actually read it. This piece, which was written before I see this, can almost function as a companion essay:
https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/is-internal-reform-of-academia-possible
where you will find stuff like this:
"this post is about self-inflicted obstacles to reform. It is about the denialism that there even is a deep problem. It is about attempts to deflect attention from addressing the problems. It is about the handwringing, pearl-clutching timidity among some of those who, with one hand, claim to want reform, and, with the other, are constantly explaining why it can’t be done, or why now is not the right time to do it, or why the real concerning problem is something else entirely."
Thanks for the comment, just for your information, there is a divide between people who thinks science must be value free or value laden. I find myself in an intermediate position. Science is linked to values epistemically and socially, but the social values have not to impede on the epistemic values which must be protected.
Thank you so much for advancing the message to our scientific organizations and publishers: the resilience of science depends on our collective determination to uphold the standards that define the pursuit of knowledge.
“In Defense of Merit in Science” attests to the unshakable commitment and dedication of scientists who have advanced humanity. But, ay—there’s the rub: the dismantling of science, education, and democratic norms has continued at an accelerated rate. The root problem is the spread of disinformation and the resulting adoption of a new norm by academic faculty, institutions, and the press—a norm that increasingly accommodates falsehoods rather than correcting them.
If we truly believe in « Résistons à la politisation de la science », then we must revisit and rewrite our mission at Heterodox Academy to enact meaningful change. Doing so will require difficult but necessary steps.
Historically, medical science and practice clearly distinguished sound practice from malpractice. This concept has been widely adopted by other professions. We affirm our commitment to scientific methodology and rigorous peer review. We also recognize that the fabrication, teaching, or publication of untruths within academic and educational institutions—especially in the absence of self-correction—constitutes malpractice. Yet our call for broad faculty autonomy has made it difficult, and at times impossible, to ensure accountability to validated truth and to sustain rigorous, evidence-based debate.
We cannot easily reform ideology, bias, or the broader spread of disinformation in society. But we can restore scholarly discourse within the university. Let's begin there.
Medicine is in serious trouble right now.
If you look at gender medicine, for instance, politicization is preventing rigorous evidence based practices from being implemented, instead, opinion (the least reliable form of medical evidence, there is the medical evidence-based pyramid) is taking priority, even in determining the positions of medical societies (American Medical Association, AAP, Endcorine Society). Needless to say, but happening anyhow, medical treatment based upon the opinion of MD's who make a living providing a certain treatment and don't follow up their patients...is not how medicine should be done. People are getting hurt.
There is a recent Health and Human Services report on gender medicine which is top notch (https://opa.hhs.gov/gender-dysphoria-report --no, RFK didn't write it, nor did AI, you can check their references yourself, and it passed peer review).
Most American MD's don't even know what is in it, not even what is in the executive summary of what they found (https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/gender-dysphoria-report-exec-summary.pdf ), including the rigorous findings of their umbrella review of systematic reviews of the evidence, or that it passed peer review (including a critique by the American Psychiatric Association which is easily rebutted by pointing to what was already in the report).
The journals similarly are mostly refusing corrections to incorrect articles. Incorrect articles abound, often claiming they want to help those who are transgender.
I suspect it is from a misguided belief in the journals that is it harmful, telling those who want medical gender interventions that the likely outcomes are unknown (including whether they will be likely to be beneficial or harmful long term) and that there are less harmful alternatives (also with unknown benefit, but harms appear to be much less). That also appears to be the reason why one of the groups that does medical recommendations ("WPATH") interfered with the rigorous evidence reviews they were going to use to support their recommendations. Those in WPATH wrote: "Our concerns, echoed by the social justice lawyers we spoke with, is that evidence based review reveals little or no evidence and puts us in an untenable position in terms of affecting policy or winning lawsuits.” https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/387/bmj.q2227.full.pdf -- peer reviewed investigative article, the Economist covered it too.
I don't understand why interfering with the Johns Hopkins evidence team's attempts to publish (documented in the above and in discovery for lawsuits, publicly available) was not a public scandal, especially as it concerns serious life-altering interventions for minors and other young people.
But unless you are following this topic, you likely have no idea this is happening.
That truly resonates with me. I’ve been in that situation before as well.
https://hxlibraries.substack.com/p/when-collegiality-becomes-censorship
It's a fallacy that scientists, and even more so, 'science' itself, are not political entities. Especially with government agencies being some of the largest funders of modern science.
Ukraine has created a distinctive form of politicisation of science—a nearly complete lack of state funding for basic research. No scientists' actions can change this situation. Deadlock.
Regarding the article, that DEI for citations point is so smart. How exacty?
DEI is getting a bad wrap and your cancelling Nature cause of some rule that suggests considerering DEI authors in making it to publication seems rather narrow minded and uninclussive of you all at Heterodox. If an article passes the peer evaluation review and the science is sound by the majority of screeners and changes and suggestions to make the article more sound have been met: what's the beef.
DEI has a bad rap because it has a really bad rap sheet, which you can find here:
https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/the-downsides-of-dei
And including DEI criteria in science does nothing to advance science at best; and, at worst, it is corrosive to science because it involves (in the case of Nature) citing sources or making claims based on the demographics of the authors rather than the importance and rigor of their science. "Hey, look, we cited 7 indigenous authors!" is utterly irrelevant to most papers. And if particular indigenous authors have done something relevant? Great, cite it just like one cites anything else relevant.