How Free and Autonomous Should Science be Today?

“The defense and security of citizens are new tasks for science.”

As head of the expert group on the interim evaluation of Horizon Europe, Manuel Heitor is at the forefront when it comes to the dilemmas of academic freedom. In 2024, the expert group presented the Heitor Report, named after him. The report outlines the measures needed to amend Horizon Europe, the EU's central funding program for research and innovation, in the last two years of its term (2025 to 2027) to allow the program to help strengthen the European Research Area in today’s atmosphere of social, technological and geopolitical challenges. The next Research Framework Program (FP 10) is planned to have double the funding volume.

We are living in a time of great transformation, said Heitor, accelerated by ever faster developing technologies. Science, innovation, and research have suddenly become vital national security interests. “How can we understand European competitiveness in the new context of defense, security, and European autonomy?” Genuine European autonomy in science, Heitor went on to explain, should mean strengthening its own competitiveness on the one hand and finding new forms of global cooperation on the other – including with risky partners such as China or the USA. “Disconnecting and blocking is not a solution. But this means that scientists have to take on more responsibility at the project level, and they can only do so if the integrity of research is guaranteed at the institutional level. The defense and security of citizens are new tasks for science.”

Europe has the potential to master the challenges – the developments of the last two decades have shown this, said Heitor, referring to the European Research Council (ERC) and the European Investment Council (EIC), which were founded 15 years ago. However, Europe must not allow the fruits of these labors to be taken away. As documented in the expert group’s report, a large proportion of the patents funded by the ERC were used by American companies or investment funds and not in Europe. Start-ups founded in Europe also migrated to the USA. “We need to learn the right lessons from this,” concludes Heitor. “We need more basic research, more ground-breaking innovations, more collaboration, and more cooperative research. This in turn requires our special attention for the next generations.”

Autonomy in an uncertain world

Against the backdrop of political upheaval and the uncertain global situation, what does it mean for the autonomy of research if anti-science parties in Europe are becoming increasingly important and in some cases included in government coalitions? Birgit Dalheimer posed this question at the beginning of the panel discussion.

“Freedom and autonomy are not a given.” Philosopher Katalin Farkas knows this from her own experience: The Central European University (CEU), where she is head of the Department of Philosophy, had to give up its seat in Budapest seven years ago because the Orbán government banned the CEU as “illegal.” “That happened in an EU member state,” Farkas recalled. “The guaranteed absence of censorship is an illusion,” she said. The current example of the USA clearly shows that even positive freedoms can be called into question and revoked at any time. “There are no guarantees. Autonomy can be curtailed at any time, whether through the withdrawal of funding or censorship.” Whether research institutions are privately or state-funded is irrelevant to their freedom, as can also be seen from the example of the CEU.

Political scientist Jens Jungblut sees the boundaries between political fields becoming increasingly blurred. If science and higher education become more important in terms of security policy because, for example, they can ensure that Europe has its own independent AI systems, or because technological developments can be used for both military and civilian purposes, then this is not per se a bad thing. But, he says, “Of course, what we do must also be viewed from the perspective of what it means for these contexts, which are vital for the state in which we work. And I think that triggers this tension, that on the one hand, we don't want control from above that dictates what can and can’t happen. On the other hand, we also have to deal responsibly with autonomy.”

In view of the threat posed by populists, it is necessary to get research back out of the combat zone. “The best way to do this is to rebuild trust in science.”

For Barbara Weitgruber, head of the Scientific Research and International Affairs, Gender Equality and Diversity Management section at the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research, the current developments are creating real dilemmas. “Research cannot isolate itself,” she said. “There is no excellent research without international exchange and international cooperation. The aim must be to remain as open as possible.” In concrete terms, this means: Austria’s 70 universities have appointed central points of contact for security issues, carried out a risk assessment, and taken risk management and awareness-raising measures in the individual institutions. The exchange of information between universities and ministries is based on trust. “We must always bear in mind that improving research security actually defends academic freedom. It’s about protecting research and research institutions and, of course, our democracies. In short, it's about minimizing risk, but not decoupling.”

The EU Commission is also currently working on a binding directive that would make freedom of research mandatory for member states in the European Research Area, to prevent the kind of influence being exerted in the USA or Hungary.

Markus Aspelmeyer’s research at the University of Vienna is absolutely basic research, “blue-sky research,” which is intended to advance a field of science, in this case quantum physics. This type of research is far removed from applications. Or is it? “‘I always wonder at what point in the research process something like dual use could creep in,” says Aspelmeyer. “We are working on very fundamental questions to try to push the boundaries of knowledge, which may eventually lead to groundbreaking new technologies. That's not at all clear at the beginning.” He also works with international research teams all over the world, “and we publish our results.” The only thing that mitigates the security risk of quantum research is the fact that nobody understands it, Aspelmeyer joked.

The form of research funding in Austria acts like a protective shield: Unlike in the USA, it is possible to change the direction of research in the middle of an approved project. “That's a lot of room for maneuver,” says Aspelmeyer.

The final question from Birgit Dalheimer: Which one research funding and policy measure would be most effective in safeguarding the freedom and autonomy of research?

Barbara Weitgruber

“We just have to realize what the Treaty of the European Union says. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union came into force on December 1, 2009, with the Treaty of Lisbon. And Article 13 states that the arts and scientific research are free from constraints. Academic freedom must be respected. This applies to all EU member states, the European Commission, the European Parliament,and everyone who lives in Europe.”

Jens Jungblut

“We need stable, reliable, and supportive framework conditions at European, national, and institutional levels that leave researchers the freedom to make decisions, but also give them the help they need to do their work in a supportive and safe way.”

Manuel Heitor

“Look at the future of young generations and improve research careers.”

Katalin Farkas

"I am very concerned and I don't know if any agency or government organization can do anything. I think there will come a point where it will depend on our individual conscience whether we stand up for freedom.”

Markus Aspelmeyer

“Abolish the timesheets and provide more money for the ERC.”