How democracy depends on science — and must protect it
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Thanks to Joe Nadeau for this contribution!
Nature News
How democracy depends on science — and must protect it
- For scientists, thoughts about democracy can feel distant from their work. Yet, around the world, governments are limiting academic freedom and interfering with decisions about what research is funded and who performs it1. Some scientists are also facing politically motivated interference and attacks2.
de Rijcke, S. Nature 657, 876–879 (2026).
European Parliamentary Research Service. EP Academic Freedom Monitor 2023 STOA study PE 757.798 (European Parliament, 2024).
Jasanoff, S. (ed.) States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order(Routledge, 2004).
Dryzek, J. S. et al. Science 363, 1144–1146 (2019).
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H. & Cook, J. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 353–369 (2017).
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies. Opinion on Democracy in the Digital Age (European Commission, 2023).
van der Linden, S. Nature Med. 28, 460–467 (2022).
Zuboff, S. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power (PublicAffairs, 2019).
Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Climate Change (Bloomsbury, 2011).
Lin, H. et al. Nature 648, 394–401 (2025).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions — 2024 Results: Building Trust in a Complex Policy Environment(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2024).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2020).
European Commission & High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. European Democracy Shield: Empowering Strong and Resilient Democracies JOIN(2025) 791 final (European Commission, 2025).
Norris, P. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).
Henderson, M. Nature 655, 9 (2026).
Cologna, V. et al. Nature Hum. Behav. 9, 713–730 (2025).
Sabel, C. F. & Zeitlin, J. in The Oxford Handbook of Governance (ed. Levi-Faur, D.) 169–184 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Building Capacity for Evidence-Informed Policy-Making: Lessons from Country Experiences (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2020).
Vasilopoulou, S. et al. Scoping Report: Future Challenges to Democracy (ed. Al-meida, M.) JRC139315 (Publications Office of the European Union, 2026).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Building Anticipatory Capacity with Strategic Foresight in Government: Lessons from Lithuania, Italy, and Malta(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2025).
As members of the European Commission’s Group of Chief Scientific Advisors, we feel it is urgent to address this concern and that we have a responsibility to make scientists’ voices heard.
Science and democracy are often viewed as distinct — science as a source of discovery, expertise and innovation and democracy as a set of institutions, rules and procedures. But, in reality, the two are intertwined3.
Science is an essential backbone of democracy. In an increasingly complex and fast-changing world, people need access to verified information and independent knowledge to make informed decisions4,5. Research aids that by generating reliable evidence and fostering critical enquiry, thus enabling a plurality of views to be discussed and creating conditions in which societies can learn from experience.
In May, Ekaterina Zaharieva, the European Commissioner for Startups, Research and Innovation, asked us to provide advice on how science can strengthen the European Union’s democratic functioning and resilience.
Independently of that process, here we put forward three pillars through which science enables democracy: establishing shared factual baselines, aiding trust in institutions and providing tools to adapt policies and organizations in response to changing circumstances.
Shared factual baselines underpin democratic decision-making
The first pillar relates to protecting the foundations and integrity of information on which democratic judgements, collective deliberation and, ultimately, action depend.
Democratic societies constantly confront questions for which there are no simple, best or permanent answers. Scientific institutions help societies to navigate changing realities by creating procedures for gathering evidence about the current situation, past trends, probable outcomes or management options; assessing impacts; communicating disagreement; quantifying uncertainties; and updating conclusions in light of new findings.
Artificial-intelligence and other digital platforms are changing how people find information, develop opinions and take part in public life6. This not only provides opportunities for broadening participation and increasing transparency, but also produces intensified, increasingly complex or fresh risks, including of misinformation, manipulation, bias, polarization and fragmentation6,7. Moreover, these developments amplify the disproportionate influence of a small number of powerful technology companies and their leaders8, including their ability to ‘manufacture doubt’ and shape public opinion9,10.
The challenge goes further than just correcting people’s misconceptions. Disinformation is often rooted in social networks, reinforced by emotions and group identities and used deliberately for political purposes5,7. It spreads through networks of people connected by identity, grievance or distrust. These vulnerabilities can be exploited by individuals seeking to advance political or economic interests9, thereby undermining democratic institutions, deepening divisions and fostering instability6.
Citizens have legitimate concerns about economic restructuring, regional inequities, how migration is governed, technological changes, ageing populations, climate risks and geopolitical instability. People might lose trust in democratic institutions, especially if they feel they are not being heard, do not understand why something changed, think they are treated unfairly or see the fabric of their communities being disrupted11. This might create vulnerabilities that can be exploited through disinformation and political manipulation5.
For this reason, scientific approaches to democratic resilience must go beyond fact-checking and include the design of effective channels for science communication and information sharing, as well as opportunities for meaningful public participation and informed deliberation4,12. These should include transparent data sources in digital platforms; independent media; strong safeguards against foreign interference; secure information infrastructures; independent monitoring and assurance of algorithmic systems; and improved understanding of how the expanding use of AI tools might shape democratic discourse and outcomes13.
Science-informed governance can strengthen trust in democracy
The second pillar refers to the legitimacy of expertise and the trustworthiness of institutions. Democratic governance can be thought of as a shared societal capacity to understand complex realities, to deliberate across differences and to act together in the face of social, economic and technological transformations and uncertainty4,6. Its resilience rests on organizations that sustain public trust and active citizenship, and on people’s capacity to participate meaningfully in deliberation and collective problem-solving4,14.
Institutions that are informed by scientific evidence and guided by scientific principles are better equipped than others to make effective, transparent and accountable decisions, strengthening public trust in democracy11. During a pandemic or other crisis, or in anticipation of such events, authorities can reinforce trust by explaining clearly how scientific evidence, including any limitations and uncertainties, informs their decisions.
But for science to strengthen democracy, researchers must be trusted, too15,16. Moreover, the legitimacy of expertise has become increasingly contested over the past few years in Europe and elsewhere5,15.
Scientific advice is subjected to politicization in many countries, with consensual insights and clear evidence (such as on climate change) being dismissed as ‘just another opinion’ or as being driven by a political agenda5,9. Public trust in expertise has become polarized along political lines5,15. Some officials and politicians might support specific strands of science, for instance, by promoting individual researchers or a few disciplines selectively. Such favouritism has implications for funding.
This ‘divide and rule’ approach to science is often tacitly accepted by the academic community, with many institutions preferring to stay silent rather than run the risk of their budgets being cut. The dilution of scientific knowledge in an ever-increasing flow of online information, often promoted by individuals with vested interests seeking to influence public decisions, can also render impartial scientific evidence and advice less visible.
Expertise strengthens democratic legitimacy when it is transparent, diverse, independent and open to scrutiny — as prescribed by the rules of science. But it weakens legitimacy when it is perceived as opaque, unclear, politicized, elitist or disconnected from people’s lived experiences.
Ensuring that expert information is democratically legitimate requires institutions and mechanisms that not only structure the interaction between science, policy and society, but also protect organizations’ separate, independent roles, manage conflicts of interests and prevent undue influence.
Crucially, not every engagement with science carries equal weight. Impartial access to scientific knowledge is most reliably secured through a cross-disciplinary and diverse group of experts. By contrast, the opinion of a single scientist might result in partial understanding (highlighting a particular disciplinary perspective) or reliance on a dissenting voice that differs from the majority view. High-level expert groups, which engage directly with senior decision makers, can identify a broader range of potential concerns. They can better understand the wider implications of policy challenges to provide relevant scientific evidence and advice, yet maintain independence in their analysis, conclusions and recommendations.
Public institutions should ensure that scientists who provide advice can do so independently and that they are free to publish their findings. This generally requires stable public funding of research1. Cuts to public science budgets can increase scientists’ dependence on a narrow range of funders, including private and commercial organizations or institutions linked to other countries. Their funding decisions could reflect strategic or political interests and might create actual or perceived conflicts of interest if appropriate transparency guidelines and safeguards are not in place.
The European Commission’s science-advice framework provides a useful example of how scientific independence can be achieved. It combines topic-specific evidence reviews by multidisciplinary expert groups with independent policy recommendations from its seven chief scientific advisers. The advisers are supported by a permanent secretariat that helps them to align scientific advice with policy needs and safeguards the independence of the advisory process. This mechanism also includes rules on transparency and the disclosure of advisers’ conflicts of interest (see go.nature.com/4jndrg).
Scientific expert groups should be able to propose topics, identify questions and communicate evidence, uncertainties and policy options to decision makers and the public independently.
But trust depends on people having the opportunity to engage with science, too. Scientific literacy, civic education, public engagement with research and access to reliable information are all essential and need to be supported by public and educational institutions. Opportunities for science education are a public good and should be accessible to all.
Citizens’ assemblies and juries, participatory budgeting, local consultation processes and deliberative forums can broaden the issues, evidence and options considered. The legitimacy of decisions and people’s trust in institutions are strengthened when individuals feel that their perspectives are heard and taken seriously4,11,12.
Science enables adaptive governance
The third pillar through which science supports democratic resilience is by providing analytical frameworks, methods and principles that promote adaptive and innovative governance approaches, democratic problem-solving, policy experimentation and institutional learning. In doing so, science can help to improve governments’ capacity to deliver effective results and strengthen public trust in democratic institutions.
In a context of rapid technological, economic and geopolitical changes, democratic institutions cannot rely on static solutions or rigid policy frameworks. They must be able to identify risks as they emerge, evaluate policy outcomes and adjust governance strategies over time.
Adaptive governance is important because democratic vulnerabilities differ around the world. Some regions are affected by declining public services, labour market disruption, depopulation and limited local institutional capacity. Others face high levels of migration-related tensions, poor access to digital resources and political polarization. Research can help governments to identify these vulnerabilities, compare policy responses and design targeted interventions.
Science provides analytical frameworks for policy evaluation and institutional norms and practices that can inform and strengthen adaptive governance17,18. Principles that can support democratic governance when tailored to institutional and societal contexts include requesting independent review and transparency, anticipating and structuring disagreement, not accepting theories before they are tested, re-evaluating claims in light of evidence and promoting iterative learning17.
The rules of science could shape the ability of institutions to acknowledge dissent, learn, experiment and adapt. In a public-health crisis, for example, this means using evidence not just to understand the threat, but also to develop and test interventions, evaluate their effects and revise policies as circumstances and scientific knowledge change. Such adaptability is essential outside the context of a crisis, too.
Governance can be made more effective by inviting comments before committing to a course of action and anticipating impacts and potential problems. This would improve decision-making and implementation. Science-based practices make it easier to recognize and acknowledge mistakes and to revise policies17–19.
Adaptive governance requires stronger infrastructures for evidence use, including close cooperation with organizations that provide scientific expertise, than does conventional decision-making18. Public policy should be designed to be a continuous process of improvement, learning and adjustment in response to shifting realities and emerging insights, rather than being a one-off legislative intervention.
Such mechanisms can help policymakers to understand which interventions work, under what conditions and what the consequences are. Examples include rapid evidence units (government departments that specialize in commissioning independent investigations at short notice), foresight systems (structured ways of identifying long-term policy challenges) and regulatory sandboxes (controlled, real-world situations or environments for testing policies or innovations)18,20.
Safeguarding science strengthens democratic resilience
The key challenge for any government is to strengthen and deepen the institutional, informational and civic capacities that enable democracy to adapt and endure. Science should be recognized as central to this effort: not only as a source of expertise, but also as a democratic infrastructure that helps societies to think critically, deliberate openly and act together, underpinning and enabling democratic resilience and public trust in governance.
From this point of view, attacks on academic freedom and independent research should concern all citizens. Undermining the independence and integrity of science weakens societies’ capacity to understand reality, instil critical thinking in young people, evaluate evidence and speak up to those in power1.
Every democracy should therefore prioritize protecting academic freedom. Governments should provide stable funding for independent research and support open science, access to evidence, independent publication, public-interest journalism and civic access to reliable information. They must also strengthen channels for dialogue between scientific institutions and policymakers while respecting the autonomy, complementary roles and responsibilities of those involved.
Nature 659, 36-39 (2026)
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-03510-4
References
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment