The future of research in a fractured world

When funding, freedom, and facts are up for debate, honest conversation isn’t just helpful – it’s essential, writes Francesca Brazzorotto

Scientific research and academic institutions don’t exist in a vacuum. As political shifts unfold across the globe, their ripple effects are increasingly being felt in how research is funded, shared, and supported.

In the latest episode of Karger in Conversation, two prominent voices in the research and academic world – Professor Nicholas Dirks, President & CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences, and Professor Ferry Breedveld, President of the Federation of European Academies of Medicine (FEAM) – joined moderator Chris Box to unpack how politics is reshaping science at every level.

The landscapes may differ from country to country, but one thing is certain: these discussions help us better understand the challenges ahead – and the opportunities to strengthen global collaboration, protect academic independence, and support the next generation of science.

A moment unlike any other

Professor Nicholas Dirks opened the conversation by placing today’s political moment in historical context. From campus protests of the 1960s to the paranoia of the McCarthy era, political tension has long touched academia. But what’s happening now is different in both scale and character.

Unlike past flare-ups, today’s pressure on universities is systemic. Entire institutions, not just individual scholars, are being targeted by ideological forces that see independent academic thought as a threat. As Dirks put it, we are witnessing “sustained, systemic efforts that directly challenge the role, integrity, and independence of higher education institutions.”

Across the Atlantic, Professor Ferry Breedveld described a quieter but no less potent erosion in Europe. There, academic independence is often threatened indirectly: through budget shifts, regulatory burdens, or a creeping politicisation of public discourse. In countries like the Netherlands, scientific research itself has become a political battleground.

Breedveld likened academia to a traffic island surrounded by fast-moving ideological forces. “For nearly a thousand years,” he said, “the role of the university has been to remain independent from government control and market-driven pressures. That independence gives us legitimacy, and it’s what we’re now at risk of losing.”

When budgets become weapons

One of the starkest parts of the conversation centred on research funding: how it is shaped by politics, and how it can be weaponised to reshape academia itself.

Dirks shared a grim picture of U.S. budget proposals, noting that institutions like the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are facing budget cuts of more than 50%. These are not marginal reductions, they are existential threats. And they’re not random either: programs focused on climate, diversity, public health, and sustainability are being disproportionately targeted.

“This is not just about money,” Dirks warned. “It’s about the very narrative of what science is and who gets to do it.”

The implications ripple outward. Funding cuts devastate early-career researchers, disrupt long-term projects, and dismantle the delicate ecosystem of labs, infrastructure, and international partnerships. “We are losing a generation,” Breedveld added, “and you don’t recover easily from that.”

Europe, for now, offers a more stable picture. The EU’s Horizon Europe program is expanding, and efforts are underway to welcome displaced American researchers. But even there, Breedveld cautioned, institutions must act quickly to influence upcoming budget frameworks, or risk losing critical support for years.

Academic freedom: a shifting battleground

Both speakers underscored that this is not just a financial story. The very meaning of academic freedom is being contested.

In the U.S., said Dirks, the threat comes through attempts to legislate “viewpoint diversity”, a euphemism for political control of curricula and campus culture. From book bans to attacks on DEI programs, academic policy is becoming a proxy war in broader ideological battles.

Breedveld echoed this concern in the European context, emphasising that universities must proactively define and defend academic freedom from within. “If institutions don’t articulate their values clearly,” he said, “they’re vulnerable to external pressure.”

The call to action was clear: safeguarding academia requires more than defending against cuts or censorship. It demands bold, internal leadership, governance models built to withstand political flux and reaffirm the core values of inquiry, independence, and openness.

When borders close, science suffers

Another casualty of the shifting political landscape is international collaboration. Once a hallmark of scientific progress, global research partnerships are now facing new barriers.

From data protection rules in Europe to national security rhetoric in the U.S., researchers are finding it harder to share knowledge across borders. “What we’re seeing,” Dirks observed, “is a re-nationalisation of science.” The implications are especially troubling for complex, global challenges, like pandemics, climate change, or antimicrobial resistance, that cannot be solved within national silos.

As collaborations falter and researchers face suspicion over foreign affiliations, the costs are mounting not just in terms of lost research but also lost trust.

A crisis worth transforming

Despite the bleakness, both Dirks and Breedveld offered glimmers of hope. Crises, after all, can create space for reinvention.

Breedveld pointed to the Covid-19 pandemic as a demonstration of what science can do when urgency meets investment and cooperation. That agility, he argued, must now be embedded in how we fund and govern research more broadly.

Dirks agreed – and called for a deeper reassessment of what we value in science. Are we funding only “safe” projects? Are we excluding diverse voices and bold ideas? Are we doing enough to support the next generation of thinkers?

If the answer is no, then this moment might yet be a turning point – not toward decline, but toward a more inclusive, adaptive, and socially grounded research model.

Trust, transparency, and the role of conversation

The discussion closed with a return to the central theme: trust. As misinformation spreads and public confidence in science wavers, it is no longer enough for researchers to be right; they must also be relatable, visible, and trusted.

That’s where exchanges like Karger in Conversation come in. Not as solutions in themselves, but as spaces to surface complexity, foster humility, and remind us that science, like democracy, depends on dialogue.

As Dirks noted, even librarians, so often overlooked in these public debates, are becoming frontline defenders of knowledge, preserving data, safeguarding access, and standing firm in the face of censorship.

So while we may not yet have the answers to where all this is heading, we can say this: if the political moment has made anything clear, it’s that science and society are more entangled than ever. And in a world where funding, freedom, and facts are up for debate, honest conversation isn’t just helpful – it’s essential. 

About Karger in Conversation

Karger in Conversation is a free quarterly online event series created by Karger Publishers, designed to bring together diverse voices from across the academic world, publishing, research, and industry. By offering a platform for honest, informed dialogue, the series explores major trends, tensions, and transformations shaping scholarly communication and the future of science.

Francesca Brazzorotto is Customer Engagement Manager at Karger Publishers

Do you want to read more content like this? SUBSCRIBE to the Research Information Newsline!