Scientists often view their work as distinct from democratic processes, yet governments worldwide are increasingly limiting academic freedom and interfering with research funding and personnel decisions. In response to these challenges, members of the European Commission's Group of Chief Scientific Advisors have outlined how science and democracy are deeply intertwined. They argue that in a rapidly changing world, access to verified information and independent knowledge is crucial for citizens and governments to make informed decisions.
The advisors propose three pillars through which science enables democratic resilience. The first pillar focuses on establishing shared factual baselines. Democratic societies face complex questions without simple answers, requiring scientific institutions to gather evidence, assess impacts, quantify uncertainties, and update conclusions based on new findings. This process is increasingly complicated by artificial intelligence and digital platforms, which, while offering opportunities for transparency, also amplify risks such as misinformation, manipulation, and the disproportionate influence of powerful technology companies.
Disinformation often spreads through social networks reinforced by emotions and group identities, exploiting legitimate public concerns regarding economic restructuring, migration, climate risks, and geopolitical instability. To counter this, scientific approaches must go beyond simple fact-checking. Effective strategies include designing channels for science communication, ensuring transparent data sources on digital platforms, maintaining independent media, and implementing safeguards against foreign interference and algorithmic bias.
The second pillar addresses the legitimacy of expertise and trust in institutions. Democratic governance relies on organizations that sustain public trust and enable active citizenship. Institutions guided by scientific principles are better equipped to make transparent and accountable decisions, particularly during crises like pandemics. However, for science to strengthen democracy, researchers themselves must be trusted. Currently, the legitimacy of expertise is increasingly contested, with scientific advice often subjected to politicization where clear evidence is dismissed as mere opinion or political agenda.
This politicization can lead to a 'divide and rule' approach where officials selectively support specific strands of science, influencing funding and creating conflicts of interest. To maintain democratic legitimacy, expert information must be transparent, diverse, independent, and open to scrutiny. Impartial access to scientific knowledge is best secured through cross-disciplinary groups of experts rather than relying on single voices, which may offer partial understandings or dissenting views that do not reflect the majority consensus.
The third pillar involves providing tools to adapt policies and organizations to changing circumstances. Ensuring scientists can provide independent advice requires stable public funding. Budget cuts can increase dependence on private or foreign funders whose strategic interests might compromise scientific independence. The European Commission's science-advice framework serves as a model, combining multidisciplinary evidence reviews with independent policy recommendations from chief scientific advisers supported by a permanent secretariat. This mechanism includes strict rules on transparency and the disclosure of conflicts of interest.
Ultimately, trust in science depends on public engagement. Scientific literacy, civic education, and access to reliable information are essential public goods that must be supported by educational institutions. By protecting academic freedom and ensuring independent scientific advice, societies can better navigate the complexities of the modern world and strengthen democratic resilience.
Sources: Nature.