Science vs. activism: Going round in vicious circles

The dispute over researchers' activism is not subsiding. On the contrary, with the protests surrounding the Gaza war, it has taken on a new dimension. It could be a productive debate, illuminating the complex, sometimes problematic, but ultimately fruitful interplay between science and politics. Unfortunately, much of it remains confined to rhetorical shadow boxing, where opposing positions are transformed into easily dismissable straw men.

Geographer Paul Messerli, for instance, states that academics "virtually called upon" to engage in political activism. An activism that Messerli simply wants to be understood as the "personal transfer of scientific expertise to politics, administration and society" – a clever rhetorical move, as hardly anyone would argue against this. A similar strategy was adopted by the geographers Hanna Hilbrandt, Carolin Schurr and Claske Dijkema who reframed the criticism of activism in the sciences as a criticism of transdisciplinary research. This, too, deflects from the core question that critics raise with regard to researchers’ political activism: To what extent is active partisanship for a political cause compatible with the claim of being scientific? Presenting criticism of political activism as an attack on knowledge transfer or transdisciplinarity misrepresents the critics' actual position.

Of course, those who criticise universities and researchers for their actual or supposed activism are skilfully constructing rhetorical straw men, too. When sociologist Martin Schröder argues that science should abstain from value judgements, he can expect support from a wide range of the scientific and political spectrum. However, endorsing such an idea of science – as a system – does not mean that scientists – as individuals – must never take on a political role. Moreover, a scientific interest in a politicised topic is not a valid reason to accuse researchers of bias, as others often suggest in attacks on research on gender or racism, for example. And when Sabine Döring, philosopher and German State Secretary for Education and Research, claims that academic freedom only protects the "depoliticized space of the search for truth," excluding any research that is "instrumentalized for social, political, ideological [...] goals," one wonders whether anything will be left of science.

One consequence of this rhetorical shadow boxing is that the "loudest defenders of academic freedom declare each other as enemies," as historian Caspar Hirschi aptly described it. Some portray political activism, others its critique as a threat to academic freedom, both ignoring the core of what constitutes the opposing view: The proponents of an apolitical science keep their eyes closed to the obvious interlocking of science and politics, while the defenders of political activism try to conceptually blur the distinction between scientific and political activity.

The ongoing controversy over the Gaza war is a particularly striking example of the attempts to appropriate science and scientific institutions for political claims. For example, the academics Julia Steinberger and Eléonore Lépinard defended the calls for a boycott of Israeli researchers and research institutions by claiming, among other things, that it is "the task [of universities] to promote and guarantee our common values such as respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights". Two problematic assumptions are hidden here: Firstly, that universities actually have such a responsibility, which goes far beyond guaranteeing free research and teaching. Secondly, that a research boycott serves to promote "fundamental freedoms and human rights", which in turn insinuates that those who object to such a boycott are against "fundamental freedoms and human rights".

Conversely, students and researchers who protest against the war in Gaza for humanitarian reasons are often unfairly equated with those who agitate against Israel with anti-Semitic motives. At best, such debates are going in circles; at worst, they escalate as they did in Germany, where the German Minister of Education and Research, Bettina Stark-Watzinger, accused academics who defended the right to protest of no longer "standing on the ground of the constitution", while other politicians called for surveillance by the German Federal Intelligence Service. This sets in motion a spiral of polarisation where it no longer counts what is actually said, but only what makes one's own side appear in the best and the other side in the worst light possible. One way out is to stop shadow boxing and to start seriously addressing the arguments that are being put forward.

The observation that science and activism cannot be clearly separated does not contradict the observation that they can be distinguished as different activities. Science is political insofar as it is embedded in a socio-political context and that its findings are a basis for political action. This does not imply, however, that science is obligated to do politics. Nevertheless, science has historically acquired a special form of political authority. This authority can be justified by the claim that science creates reliable and diverse knowledge to understand and explain the world, which is to be politically shaped. It is a form of authority that makes science political, yet simultaneously elevates it above politics, thereby protecting it from political attacks. This, in turn, makes it attractive to be instrumentalised for political demands.

Therefore, the debate on science and activism revolves around two related questions: How political can science be without violating principles of scientific integrity and undermining the legitimacy of the special role it plays within politics? And how much political abstinence is tolerable without having to forgo scientific contributions to the common good?

At the moment, both sides still want to have their cake and eat it too. Those who insist on a clear separation between science and politics are rarely willing to recognise the consequences of such a demand: Politics acting detached from scientific findings and science becoming sociopolitically irrelevant. On the other hand, those who emphasise the interlocking of science and politics and conclude that science can therefore engage in political activism often fail to explain how the freedoms and special rights from which science benefits can be justified. If the authority of science can be used to engage in activist politics, does science still deserve the special authoritative role it is accorded in society and politics? Why should it not be subjected to political scrutiny as harshly as other actors? It seems that some demand not only the right to research freely but also the right to politicise without objection.

Anyone who desires science to be both sociopolitically relevant and protected from political attacks must recognise its political aspects without deriving a general claim to authority or reducing it to just another political actor among many. Regarding the ongoing debates around the Gaza conflict, this means that if these debates are to be conducted at a university or another institution committed to science, they must offer more than mere protest. After all, anyone who invokes academic values, as many protesters are currently doing to justify the occupation of universities, must also honour these values themselves. This includes the willingness to engage with opposing arguments and to create a space where these can be expressed within a broader context. Protest can catalyse academic debate, but it cannot replace it.

Similarly, the right to freedom of expression at a university does not include the right to appropriate the university for one's own political demands. Ute Clement and Sonja Buckel, President and Vice President of the University of Kassel, rightly point out that universities "are not elected officials whose function is to position themselves politically". Universities and other institutions engaged in scientific research would do well to resist the pressure to take institutional sides in socio-political controversies and instead create space for the nuanced debates that are not possible in the publicly fueled spirals of outrage. In doing so, these institutions should also be granted the autonomy to find independent solutions for dealing with the activism of their students and researchers, as long as neither scientific principles nor fundamental rights are disproportionately restricted.