Science enables democracy by establishing shared factual baselines, aiding trust in institutions, and providing tools to adapt policies and organizations in response to changing circumstances, according to advice prepared by the European Commission’s Group of Chief Scientific Advisors and published by Nature. As governments limit academic freedom and platforms spread disinformation, experts warn that protecting independent research is essential for democratic resilience.
For scientists, thoughts about democracy can feel distant from their daily work in labs and field studies. Governments worldwide are currently curtailing academic freedom, however, and meddling in decisions regarding which projects receive funding and who carries them out. Some researchers are also facing politically motivated interference and attacks, according to members of the European Commission’s Group of Chief Scientific Advisors writing in Nature.
Science and democracy are often viewed as distinct domains. Science operates as a source of discovery, expertise, and innovation, while democracy functions through a set of institutions, rules, and procedures. In reality, the two are deeply intertwined. Research serves as an essential backbone of democracy by generating reliable evidence and fostering critical enquiry, which allows a plurality of views to be discussed and helps societies learn from experience.
Establishing Shared Factual Baselines for Democratic Deliberation
Democratic societies constantly confront complex questions for which there are no simple, permanent answers. Scientific institutions help handle these changing realities by creating procedures for gathering evidence about current situations, past trends, and probable outcomes. They assess impacts, communicate disagreements, quantify uncertainties, and update conclusions in light of new findings.
However, artificial intelligence and other digital platforms are altering how people find information, develop opinions, and participate in public life. These technologies create fresh risks, including misinformation, manipulation, bias, polarization, and fragmentation. They also amplify the disproportionate influence of a small number of powerful technology companies and their leaders, who possess the ability to manufacture doubt and shape public opinion.
Disinformation often takes root within social networks, where it is reinforced by emotions and group identities and used deliberately for political purposes. It spreads through networks of people connected by identity, grievance, or distrust. Individuals seeking to advance political or economic interests can exploit these vulnerabilities, ultimately undermining democratic institutions and deepening social divisions.
Strengthening Institutional Trust Through Scientific Governance
Citizens harbor legitimate concerns about economic restructuring, regional inequities, migration governance, technological shifts, aging populations, climate risks, and geopolitical instability. People risk losing trust in democratic institutions if they feel unheard, do not understand policy shifts, or see their communities disrupted. These vulnerabilities are frequently exploited through disinformation.
Scientific approaches to democratic resilience must go beyond basic fact-checking. They require effective channels for science communication, transparent data sources in digital platforms, independent media, strong safeguards against foreign interference, and independent monitoring of algorithmic systems. When authorities explain clearly how scientific evidence and its uncertainties inform their decisions during crises, public trust is reinforced.
Yet, the legitimacy of expertise has become increasingly contested. Scientific advice is subjected to politicization in many countries, where consensual insights on topics such as climate change are dismissed as mere opinions or political agendas. Public trust in expertise has polarized along political lines, with some officials promoting only specific researchers or selective disciplines while cutting funding for others.
This divide-and-rule approach is often accepted by an academic community that stays silent to protect its budgets. To counteract this, public institutions must ensure that scientists who provide advice can do so independently and publish their findings freely. Stable public funding remains critical to prevent researchers from becoming entirely dependent on private commercial organizations or foreign institutions with strategic interests.
European Commission Combines Expert Reviews with Independent Policy Recommendations
The science-advice framework utilized by the European Commission exemplifies how scientific independence can be successfully attained. Multidisciplinary expert groups conduct topic-specific evidence reviews, which are then integrated with independent policy recommendations delivered by its seven chief scientific advisers. A permanent secretariat helps align advice with policy needs while safeguarding the independence of the advisory process through strict rules on transparency and conflict-of-disclosure.
High-level expert groups that engage directly with senior decision-makers can identify a broad range of potential concerns and understand the wider implications of policy challenges. Impartial access to scientific knowledge is most reliably secured through cross-disciplinary and diverse groups of experts rather than reliance on a single voice.
Trust ultimately depends on people having direct opportunities to engage with science. Scientific literacy, civic education, and public engagement with research are essential public goods that must be supported by educational institutions to ensure that verified information remains accessible to all citizens.
