Academic freedom and attacks on research: information on the situation in France and Europe

What is meant by the term “academic freedom”?

Whereas freedom of expression—free speech—is a longstanding human right, the principle of academic freedom is much more recent and pertains exclusively to academics (university professors) and scientific researchers. It designates their right to freely conduct research and teach in order to advancing our scientific knowledge. This is therefore a right granted to certain categories of people in society in order to ensure that they can practice their profession freely, with the understanding that they do so for the benefit of all, in the general interest. To interfere with or prohibit academic freedom is to disadvantage or undermine society as a whole.

The right to academic freedom cannot be thought of independently of the obligations it entails: compliance with the ethical principles and scientific integrity required in the fields of research and higher education (see refs. 1 and 2 below). Researchers’ responsibility, particularly for what they say publicly, comes into relief in a very particular way when research studies are decried as partisan or scientifically invalid. And such declarations or arguments can then be used to restrict academic freedom.

INED is directly concerned here because many of its studies focus on highly sensitive contemporary subjects and immediate societal issues—migration, gender inequalities, sexual and reproductive health, for example—which in turn means that the researchers implicated in those studies are heavily exposed to mainstream media outlet requests for comment on their work. 

What subjects did speakers discuss at the event?

We invited Danièle Joly from the UK, professor emeritus at the University of Warwick department of sociology, who, as president of the Scientific Board of the Global Observatory on Academic Freedom, was particularly well positioned to speak about the issue. She showed how the offensive against academic freedom is being conducted by a range of different actors whose discourses in fact reinforce each other. She first worked to explain the whys and wherefores of the phenomenon, drawing among other things on a comparison of the situations in France and the United Kingdom, in an approach at once political, economic and historical.

Eric Guilyardi, senior researcher at the CNRS Institute Pierre-Simon Laplace for climate science, then summarized the main points of a recent opinion handed down by the CNRS Ethics Committee (ref. 3 below), entitled “Freedom and Responsibility: Academic Researchers’ Public Advocacy,” for which he served as co-rapporteur. Guilyardi shed light on the series of questions taken up by the Committee: Can researchers legitimately advocate for or take positions on societal issues? Do they have an obligation to be neutral? How should they reconcile their positions with the questions of impartiality and credibility in a context of multiple issues and stances on them, polarized public debate, and the relatively new reality of amplified public exposure via social media? It is particularly interesting and important to discuss these questions given that there is no consensus on them in the scientific community today. A discussion and debate to be continued therefore …

To close the session, Pascal Aimé, inspector-general for sports education and research and INED Ethics Officer, reviewed the fundamental principles of academic freedom, notably through a presentation of the opinion and conclusions of France’s Higher Education and Research Ministry Committee on professional conduct that concerned public remarks by researchers (see ref. 4). He also took up the question of limits to academic and researcher freedom of expression.

These two official opinions (refs. 3 and 4) are important, and we invite members of the academic community to consult them. 

What led you to organize this information dissemination session?

In fact, this is not the first time that the INED Ethics Committee has set up a discussion on the subject. In June 2022, the Ethics Committee and the Scientific Integrity Officer at the time, Henri Leridon, organized an INED workshop on research and researcher freedom. One of the main issues at that time was relations between researchers and regulation authorities and steering bodies.  Researchers had begun to worry that research work, increasingly subject to matters of project funding and the constraint of being productive in the short term, was exposed to the risk of becoming less free and creative.

The context was different at the time. However, developments since then have only reinforced concern about the issue. Recent attacks on academic freedom in the United States, leveled with particular vehemence at the social and environmental sciences, are a major issue. And Europe too is being affected by a rising movement or tendency to discredit science. Up against this development, the scientific community in France and Europe has now mobilized in support of the Stand Up For Science organization.