How Democracy Depends on Science and Why It Must Protect Scientific Integrity

Science and democracy are deeply connected: democratic societies need reliable evidence to make informed decisions, while science depends on academic freedom, independent institutions and public trust. The authors, members of the European Commission’s Chief Scientific Advisory Group, argue that science strengthens democracy through three pillars: establishing a shared baseline of facts, building trust in institutions and expertise, and helping societies adapt policies as circumstances change.

For scientists, democracy can sometimes seem remote from their research. Yet governments around the world are restricting academic freedom and interfering with decisions about which research is funded and who conducts it.¹ Some scientists also face politically motivated interference and attacks.²

As members of the European Commission’s Chief Scientific Advisory Group, we believe this issue requires urgent attention and that we have a responsibility to make scientists’ voices heard.

Science is often viewed as a source of discovery, expertise and innovation, whereas democracy is understood as a set of institutions, rules and procedures. In practice, however, the two are closely intertwined.³

Science is an important foundation of democracy. In a complex and rapidly changing world, people need access to verified information and specialized knowledge to make informed decisions.^{4, 5} Research helps by producing reliable evidence and encouraging critical inquiry. It allows competing views to be debated and creates opportunities for society to learn from experience.

In May, European Commissioner for Start-ups, Research and Innovation Ekaterina Zakharieva asked us for advice on how science can strengthen the democratic functioning and resilience of the European Union.

Independently of that process, we propose three pillars through which science can enable democracy: establishing a common baseline of facts, supporting trust in institutions and providing tools to adapt policies and institutions to changing circumstances.

A shared factual baseline supports democratic decision-making

The first pillar is the protection of the infrastructure and integrity of the information on which democratic judgment, public deliberation and collective action depend.

Democratic societies constantly confront problems that have no simple, optimal or permanent solutions. Scientific institutions help societies respond to changing conditions by developing methods to gather evidence about current situations, past trends, likely outcomes and possible management approaches. They assess impacts, communicate disagreements and quantify uncertainty. Conclusions can then be revised as new findings emerge.

Artificial intelligence and other digital platforms are changing how people find information, form opinions and participate in public life.⁶ These technologies create opportunities for greater participation and transparency, but they also introduce or intensify risks involving misinformation, manipulation, bias, polarization and fragmentation.^{6, 7} They can also amplify the disproportionate influence of a small number of powerful technology companies and their leaders,^{8 including their ability to “create suspicion” and shape public opinion.9, 10}

How can we bring science back into policymaking?

The challenge is not simply to correct misconceptions. Disinformation is often rooted in social networks, reinforced by sentiment and group identity, and deliberately used for political purposes.^{5, 7} It spreads through networks connected by shared identities, grievances and mistrust. Individuals seeking to advance political or economic interests can exploit these vulnerabilities.^{9 Disinformation undermines democratic institutions, deepens divisions and fosters instability.6}

Citizens have legitimate concerns about economic restructuring, regional inequality, immigration management, technological change, ageing, climate risks, geopolitical instability and many other issues. People can lose faith in democratic institutions when they feel ignored, cannot understand why circumstances have changed, believe they are being treated unfairly or see their communities falling apart.¹¹ These conditions can create vulnerabilities that disinformation or political manipulation may exploit.⁵

A scientific approach to democratic resilience must therefore go beyond fact-checking. It should include effective channels for scientific communication and information sharing, together with opportunities for meaningful public participation and informed deliberation.^{4, 12} This requires transparent data sources on digital platforms, independent media, strong safeguards against foreign interference, secure information infrastructure and independent monitoring and assurance of algorithmic systems. Understanding has also improved of how the expanding use of AI tools shapes democratic debates and outcomes.¹³

Science-based governance can strengthen trust in democracy

The second pillar concerns the legitimacy of expertise and the credibility of institutions. Democratic governance can be understood as a society’s shared capacity to understand complex realities, work across differences and act collectively in response to social, economic and technological change and uncertainty.^{4, 6} Its resilience depends on institutions that maintain public trust and active citizenship, as well as on people’s ability to participate meaningfully in deliberation and collective problem-solving.^{4, 14}

Institutions informed by scientific evidence and guided by scientific principles are better positioned to make decisions that are effective, transparent and accountable, thereby strengthening public trust in democracy.¹¹ During or ahead of a pandemic or another crisis, authorities can build trust by explaining clearly how scientific evidence—including its limitations and uncertainties—informs their decisions.

For science to strengthen democracy, however, researchers must also be trusted.^{15, 16} In Europe and elsewhere, the legitimacy of expertise has become increasingly contested in recent years.^{5, 15}

Scientific advice has become politicized in many countries. Consensus findings and clear evidence, including evidence of climate change, can be dismissed as “just opinion” or shaped by political objectives.^{5, 9} Public trust in expertise is polarized along political lines.^{5, 15} Some officials and politicians may favor particular scientific fields by selectively promoting individual researchers or areas of research. Such incentives affect funding decisions.

Six ways to put the public at the center of science and policy

This “divide and conquer” approach to science is often tacitly accepted in academia, where many research institutions prefer to remain silent rather than risk budget cuts. The dilution of scientific knowledge in the growing flow of online information is often aided by people with vested interests who seek to influence public decisions. This can make unbiased scientific evidence and advice less visible.

Expertise strengthens democratic legitimacy when it is transparent, diverse, independent and open to scrutiny, as required by scientific practice. Its legitimacy is weakened when it is seen as opaque, unclear, politicized, elitist or disconnected from people’s lived experiences.

Democratically legitimate expert information requires institutions and mechanisms that structure interactions among science, policy and society. These arrangements must also protect the separate and independent roles of organizations, manage conflicts of interest and prevent undue influence.

Not all forms of engagement with science carry equal weight. Equitable access to scientific knowledge is best supported by a diverse group of experts from multiple disciplines. By contrast, the opinion of a single scientist may provide only a partial understanding by emphasizing one academic perspective, or may rely on views that differ from the majority position.

A high-level expert group working directly with senior decision-makers can identify a broader range of potential concerns. Such a group can better understand the wider implications of policy issues and provide relevant scientific evidence and advice while maintaining independence in its analysis, conclusions and recommendations.

Have people stopped trusting science? Data tells an amazing story

Public authorities must ensure that scientists providing advice can act independently and publish their research results. This typically requires stable public funding for research.¹ Cuts to public science budgets may increase researchers’ dependence on a narrow range of funders, including private and commercial organizations or institutions linked to other countries. Funding decisions may reflect strategic or political interests, creating actual or perceived conflicts of interest unless appropriate transparency rules and safeguards are in place.

The European Commission’s Scientific Advice Framework offers one example of how scientific independence can be supported. It combines a thematic evidence review by a multidisciplinary group of experts with independent policy recommendations from seven chief scientific advisers. The advisers are supported by a permanent secretariat, which tailors scientific advice to policy needs and safeguards the independence of the advisory process. The framework also includes rules on transparency and disclosure of advisers’ conflicts of interest (see go.nature.com/4jndrg).

Scientific expert groups must be able to propose topics independently, identify questions and communicate evidence, uncertainties and policy options to decision-makers and the public.

Trust also depends on whether people have opportunities to engage with science. Scientific literacy, civic education, public engagement in research and access to reliable information are all essential. They require support from public and educational institutions. Opportunities for science education are a public good and should be accessible to everyone.

Source: www.nature.com