Dear Commons Community,

H. Holden Thorpe, editor of Science, has an editorial this morning commenting on academic freedom and institutional neutrality. The issue is particularly important given the struggles of college presidents in responding to activism on their campuses regarding the Israel-Hamas War. For those of us in academia, Thorpe’s conclusion about universities “shirking their responsibility to stand up not for any particular finding but for a more overriding principle—the importance of independent scholarship” is critical. 

Below is the entire editorial. It is well-worth a read.

Tony

——————————————————–

Science

H. Holden Thorp

July 26, 2024

The idea that universities in the United States—and especially their presidents—should be politically neutral was taking hold long before their recent struggles in responding to the Israel–Hamas war. A document called the Kalven Report that was produced at the University of Chicago in 1967 famously declared that “the university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.” Thus, in matters of political controversy, the university best serves its faculty and students by remaining neutral so that those with disciplinary expertise can opine freely. Neutrality makes good sense when it comes to political issues that by their nature are matters of opinion. But what about matters of science, especially when a finding has powerful political implications such as studies on climate or vaccines? Where should universities draw the line?

The proponents of blanket neutrality assert that universities should not only stay out of geopolitical matters but should also not comment on findings of their faculty’s research if they are politically sensitive. But does that paint the issue with too broad a brush? There is a distinction between the science itself and opinions about whether and how to act on it. The results of a vaccine trial are neutral—however, the role of government in mandating vaccines is political.

Peter Hans, president of the 17-campus University of North Carolina system, told me he would not support or oppose a particular scientific finding but “will defend all day the faculty’s right to share that finding with the world.” Jenna Robinson, a staunch proponent of neutrality and president of the conservative James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, went even further, saying to me, “I think it’s better for presidents not to comment on the content of the research (italics hers).” And University of Chicago president Paul Alivisatos, also a renown nanoscientist, told me that the proper approach is wholesale neutrality, with the university standing as a place where “both popular and dissenting viewpoints are thoughtfully subject to reason and evidenced debate. A president seeking to foreclose debates by issuing institutional proclamations will inadvertently erode the credibility of the university in the eyes of the public and policy-makers alike.”

“For the scientists themselves, university neutrality is a two-edged sword.”

Many critics of neutrality are disheartened by this hands-off approach. The prolific biomedical scientist Eric Topol described the stance to me as “a consistent path of being spineless, hiding in plain sight, ducking controversy, appearing to be dissociated from faculty and the science that they publish.” It’s discouraging that institutions can validate the scientific research of faculty by hiring and promoting them but then opt for neutrality if the findings have political implications. I don’t fault the presidents for adopting this position—the polarizing politics of the moment gives them little choice. But it is a major shift from an era when university presidents were regarded as both academic and moral leaders who stood up for the truth in times of crisis.

For the scientists themselves, university neutrality is a two-edged sword. It comes with a strong commitment by administrators to back the rights of faculty to carry out their research, wherever the results may lead, but the trade-off is that if the findings are politically sensitive, the institution is going to stay out of the fray.

If neutrality is to be the order of the day, then scientists need to take extra care not to be intimidated when their research ignites a political storm. Dartmouth College President Sian Beilock put it like this: “I think a scientist’s job is to do the best work they can and publish the findings that they believe will be most impactful to humanity,” she said, “regardless of whether their conclusions align with one particular idea.”

At the same time, scientists need to hold the institutions accountable for their commitments to stand behind their researchers in every other way. True neutrality means that institutions would not take actions to defund or deemphasize research because it is controversial, but there are worrying signs that this is already happening. Stanford University just shut down its disinformation research program after it was hit by lawsuits from conservative groups. Unless this reciprocity holds, there is a danger that universities will shirk their responsibility to stand up not for any particular finding but for a more overriding principle—the importance of independent scholarship.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.