Interview with MWS President Ute Frevert on the conference "Academic Freedom Internationally and Nationally"

What are the most important results of the MWS Conference "Freedom of Science Internationally and Nationally"?

Ute Frevert: The aim of the conference was to gain insights into how other countries and regions of the world view academic freedom against the backdrop of the debate on academic freedom in Germany. As the Max Weber Foundation maintains institutes in eleven different countries around the world - in Europe and Asia, the Middle East and North America - it can provide these insights first-hand and has done so in several high-calibre expert panels. If there was one central conclusion, it was this: Academic freedom is fundamental to a liberal and democratic society. However, it also became clear that this freedom cannot be taken for granted. Although it is enshrined in the Basic Law, it must be defended again and again - especially today, especially in a world in which the enemies of science and its freedom are becoming increasingly vocal, both internally and externally.

To what extent do the debates on freedom of science and freedom of opinion differ?

Ute Frevert: Both freedoms are protected by the Basic Law. But there are differences. Science is not an opinion, but is committed to the search for truth - knowing full well that one can only approach the truth without ever possessing it completely. In plain language, this means accepting other perspectives, other research approaches, taking them into account in one's own analyses and weighing up the arguments for and against them. The sciences have established binding rules for such deliberation processes. They are not dependent on what social groups or the government want to hear. They follow their own, self-imposed cognitive criteria, and it is precisely this autonomy and freedom that is guaranteed by the constitution. Anyone who confuses science with opinion and places political activism above the rules of research is weakening science and sawing away at its freedom. Researchers as well as members of society and politics must recognise these principles of the academic discourse.

Were there any recommendations for action?

Ute Frevert: Our recommendations are aimed at everyone - academic institutions, political decision-makers and civil society. Firstly, protection programmes such as Scholars at Risk should be expanded so that scientists in danger can find a safe place for their work. Secondly, open access to scientific results - open science - must be strengthened so that knowledge sharing becomes easier globally. Thirdly, science communication is extremely important. But not only in the sense of a sender-recipient transfer. Society and politics must understand how science "works", what it can and cannot do, namely proclaim definitive truths. Fourthly, international academic networks should be further developed because they are indispensable for exchange and multi-perspectivity. And finally, academics should be encouraged to contribute their voices to political and social discussions, while making a clear distinction between personal opinion and academic argumentation. Similarly, funders - whether public or private – should acknowledge this distinction.

What is your conclusion?

Ute Frevert: The conference impressively demonstrated that academic freedom - especially in the humanities and social sciences - is an indispensable basis for the power of social self-reflection and development. In many countries, from the USA to Russia and India, this freedom is under acute threat, and I also see such tendencies in Germany, both "from above", from the state, and "from below", from activist groups. We therefore need both vigilance and commitment. The many practical ideas for this commitment that we discussed have made me optimistic. They provide good approaches for how science, politics and society can work together to secure this essential freedom.

Thank you very much for your assessment, Prof Frevert!

(The interview was conducted in writing on 17 January 2025, questions by Katrin Schlotter)