To avoid any professional repercussions, the interviewee has chosen to remain anonymous. In this conversation, ‘Scientist,’ a leading researcher, examines the growing politicization and suppression of science. He argues that governments are increasingly manipulating scientific discourse to control narratives, particularly on issues like climate change and public health.

The discussion delves into the troubling ways institutions such as the NIH and NSF are being defunded or staffed with political loyalists, threatening the integrity of scientific research. The ‘Scientist’ also draws historical parallels, likening these developments to Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, where ideology trumped empirical evidence with disastrous consequences.

Beyond the scientific realm, the conversation touches on broader societal concerns, including attacks on women’s rights and the erosion of independent thought. At its core, this interview underscores the urgent need to defend scientific integrity against political interference.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the most pressing concerns regarding the crackdown on scientists who speak out, as well as the broader assault on science as a discipline—one that relies on government funding, demands highly trained professionals, and depends on career researchers who spend decades building institutions and advancing knowledge?

Scientist: I think the problem is broader—it is fundamentally a crackdown on any center of independent thought. In the current political climate, much revolves around control.

Those in power want to control the narrative. They perceive academics as people who believe they have the freedom to think independently and to express their findings openly. This means that academic conclusions do not always align with the preferred narratives of those in power.

This issue most obviously affects scholars in the humanities, but it also impacts scientists. There are clear cases, such as the climate crisis and greenhouse gas emissions. Every reputable climate scientist agrees that climate change is occurring and is driven by human activity, particularly the release of greenhouse gases.

The only way to mitigate this while maintaining our standard of living is to transition away from fossil fuels. However, this is an inconvenient truth for many industries and political entities. As a result, scientists are often discredited through orchestrated misinformation campaigns amplified by compliant media outlets.

This ultimately undermines trust in the scientific process, turning discussions that should be rooted in empirical evidence into political debates. When scientific findings become politicized, people retreat into ideological camps rather than objectively evaluate the evidence.

One of science’s fundamental lessons is that we must continuously assess situations as new information becomes available. We must make the best possible judgments based on the available evidence. However, this process is increasingly being replaced by a system where people cling to preconceived beliefs and promote arguments that serve their ideological interests, regardless of evidence. In doing so, they discourage genuine inquiry and suppress the pursuit of knowledge.

This, at its core, is an attack on the scientific method.

Jacobsen: A long-standing example of this phenomenon in North America is the persistent effort to insert creationism and intelligent design into school curricula.

Despite clear legal precedents barring these concepts from science classrooms, certain religious groups—primarily evangelical Protestant activists, along with some Catholic factions—continue to push for their reintroduction. These efforts typically sidestep peer review and established scientific discourse, instead relying on political maneuvering and legal challenges. When these challenges inevitably fail in court, activists adapt their strategies and try again, seeking new avenues to influence educational policy.

Scientist: I don’t think they care if they lose the lawsuits. Their goal isn’t necessarily to win but to amplify their message. Legal battles take years, and public attention has moved on by the time a case is resolved.

Most people only remember the initial controversy. If that controversy reinforces their existing worldview, they internalize it. When the courts ultimately rule against creationism, many don’t notice—or they dismiss the ruling as biased. This cycle allows misinformation to persist, even in the face of overwhelming scientific and legal opposition.

Jacobsen: How does this type of religiously motivated activism compare to government-led efforts to suppress scientific discourse? What distinguishes grassroots campaigns—such as creationist movements—from broader, state-driven suppression of scientific research?

Scientist: Well, there’s an issue of power. Fundamentalist Christian groups are just one among many factions vying for influence. In an open marketplace of ideas, people can debate, discuss, and try to persuade others. Some will be convinced, while many will reject their arguments.

Intellectual progress generally works this way, including in science. Scientists propose different hypotheses, test them, and debate their merits. What makes the current situation different is the issue of power.

Suppose a government adopts a rigid ideological position and enforces it without regard for scientific reasoning. In that case, the issue is no longer about debate. The enforcement of such views is often based on deeply held emotional or ideological convictions, rather than an objective evaluation of evidence.

In these cases, the primary goal is not societal improvement but the consolidation of power and control. The belief driving these actions is that society should conform to a specific worldview that the ruling elite deems correct.

In extreme cases, this power dynamic is purely about self-interest—where the wealthy and powerful seek to maintain their status and prevent challenges to their authority. The precise nature of this power structure varies across different political systems.

For instance, in China, the government operates under an authoritarian model. While power and wealth are concentrated at the top, the ruling party still maintains that its policies serve the broader population.

In contrast, this justification is largely absent in the United States. Policies increasingly prioritize economic redistribution from the lower and middle classes to the wealthiest individuals.

Take tariffs, for example. They are often presented as protective economic measures, but in practice, they are highly regressive. Tariffs increase costs for everyone, and much of their revenue is channelled toward tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy.

At the same time, political rhetoric around immigration is often used as a distraction—a way to shift public attention away from economic policies that ultimately transfer wealth upwards.

Jacobsen: What about individuals whose livelihoods are directly affected by these policies? When institutions face funding cuts, freezes, or mass layoffs, how do those in the scientific community respond?

Scientist: Yeah, well, this is extraordinary. In the United States, one of the most striking developments is that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is being directed by someone who actively seeks to discourage childhood vaccination.

Vaccination of children and eradicating smallpox, polio, and diphtheria was one of the most significant advancements in reducing child mortality in the 20th century. Rolling back these efforts would be catastrophic, yet there are indications that such policies may be enacted purely based on political ideology.

It is not entirely clear what will happen yet, but the individual appointed to lead the NIH has openly stated his desire to scale back vaccination programs. Furthermore, initial actions have involved removing key officials responsible for promoting these public health initiatives.

Jacobsen: What about the individuals on the ground doing the work–the ones who still have jobs and are responsible for the fundamental operations of health and science agencies?

Scientist: Well, sure. The impact is already being felt. For example, Elon Musk’s extra-congressional influence has been used to push for a reduction in federal bureaucracy, leading to significant layoffs.

This includes essential personnel, such as program managers at the National Science Foundation (NSF), whose primary responsibility is to ensure that research funding is distributed as fairly and effectively as possible. Many of these individuals have already been dismissed.

The long-term consequences of these actions remain uncertain, but with fewer staff available to administer NSF funding, the allocation process will become significantly more challenging. This may be a prelude to a broader NSF budget reduction.

Jacobsen: Why are these funding programs being targeted? Why are agencies like the NIH and NSF under attack while other entities—such as the Department of Defense, where Elon Musk holds contracts—remain largely untouched?

Scientist: Fundamentally, this is about dismantling apolitical federal agencies. Many agencies, including those overseeing scientific research and public health, were established to operate above partisan politics.

These institutions were built to function independently of shifting political administrations, ensuring that federal funds are allocated wisely and effectively under congressional oversight. However, this principle of an independent civil service is now under attack.

We repeatedly see that the individuals being fired are responsible for making funding decisions. They are being replaced by political loyalists who align with the current power structure.

Jacobsen: How will this impact the future of scientific research? If the individuals responsible for equitably distributing research funding and maintaining fair systems are being replaced by MAGA loyalists, what does that mean for the direction of science?

Scientist: I don’t know. It’s impossible to predict with certainty. It depends on the extent of their actions.

One clear directive already stated is the exclusion of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) considerations from future funding decisions. I am not part of the U.S. system. However, many North American colleagues feel that DEI criteria have increasingly dominated grant proposals.

Some might welcome a shift toward a model where scientific excellence takes greater precedence over DEI in funding evaluations. However, it remains unclear whether these changes will stop there or extend to other politically motivated decisions.

Political interference seems inevitable in fields such as climate science and public health. The direct impact may be less obvious in disciplines like astronomy, though still possible.

There is also the defence and space research issue, where Elon Musk has an enormous conflict of interest. Notably, independent oversight figures, such as inspectors general—who are meant to operate free from political influence to prevent corruption and conflicts of interest—have all been dismissed. This pattern aligns with fascist governance tactics.

Jacobsen: How would you characterize this widespread restructuring, particularly in relation to Americans’ access to highly sensitive personal information?

Scientist: I’m not American, but that does not provide much reassurance. The corporations with access to this data are transnational.

During Brexit, multiple scandals involved Facebook and Google accessing British records, manipulating public perception, and influencing political outcomes. This issue is not unique to the U.S.—it is happening globally.

With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, we are seeing an exponential increase in the amount of funding directed toward data collection, networking, and cross-referencing massive databases. This can only make the problem worse.

The current political climate in North America is exacerbating the situation. Still, the fundamental issue of mass data collection, regardless of politics, remains deeply concerning.

Jacobsen: What about the situation in Germany with the AfD party and concerns regarding the rise of far-right activism there?

Scientist: The political consensus in Germany remains strong, with roughly 70 to 80 percent of the population solidly aligned with mainstream politics.

However, the far right is becoming increasingly vocal. They dominate the discourse by speaking loudly and persistently, often focusing on anti-immigrant rhetoric.

This pattern is not unique to Germany—it is part of a broader trend seen across multiple Western democracies, where right-wing populist movements use fear and nationalism to gain political traction.

It is quite noticeable that the places where anti-immigrant sentiment is the strongest are often areas with relatively few immigrants. In contrast, cities like Berlin, where immigrants make up a significant portion of the population, tend to be much less anti-immigrant.

This suggests that immigration is being used as a political distraction. Instead of addressing the real economic issues—such as why, despite GDP growth over the past 30 years, only a small fraction of the population has seen a significant rise in income while the lower half remains stagnant—people are being encouraged to blame immigrants.

The core issue here is economic inequality, but immigration is being used as a scapegoat to divert attention from these deeper systemic problems.

Jacobsen: How long does building up a research program within an institution take? This might help people understand the magnitude of loss when scientists and researchers are fired or defunded.

Scientist: It depends greatly on the field of research.

For a theoretician, computational resources can be rebuilt relatively quickly if necessary. However, the real issue is human capital. If you stop training scientists, you lose a generation of thinkers accustomed to scientific reasoning, critical analysis, and methodological rigour. Disrupting the education and training pipeline severely damages the entire research ecosystem.

The impact is even greater for fields requiring extensive instrumentation. Space research, for example, typically takes around 25 years to move from initial concept to launch. If a program is cancelled 10 or 15 years into its development, that’s essentially two decades of progress lost.

The same applies to many other scientific disciplines, where technical expertise and specialized equipment take years to develop. It’s not just about losing researchers with theoretical knowledge, it’s also about losing expert technicians who know how to build and maintain the necessary infrastructure.

While losing equipment is a setback, the greater loss is, however, the disintegration of the research community itself.

Jacobsen: Can you think of any historical precedents where science has been gutted, politicized, and undermined to this extent?

Scientist: Yes, it happened in Russia in the 1930s. The most well-known example is Trofim Lysenko, whose pseudoscientific ideas were politically embraced by the Soviet regime. His rejection of Mendelian genetics led to disastrous consequences for Soviet agriculture and severely damaged biological research in the USSR.

Interestingly, this level of scientific suppression did not fully occur in Nazi Germany. While Jewish scientists were expelled from academia, the Nazi regime still recognized the need for technical expertise, particularly in military research. As a result, science was not destroyed outright. However, it was often redirected toward war-related efforts, some of which had deeply unethical and destructive consequences.

Jacobsen: Have other major scientists spoken out about these developments?

Scientist: The situation in Germany has not yet reached a critical level. However, there is widespread concern about what is happening in the United States.

Some believe the instability in American science—where researchers are losing jobs and funding—could benefit German science by attracting displaced scientists. There is speculation that this could be an opportune moment to recruit talent.

However, that is a very short-sighted view.

Jacobsen: I hope the Perimeter Institute is hiring.

Scientist: Well, they do have a solid endowment. They can afford it if they see an opportunity to attract top researchers.

Jacobsen: This presents a different kind of challenge.

Every society grapples with long-standing issues—whether it’s expanding opportunities for women in science or creating pathways for skilled immigrants in search of a better future. Many nations have made strides toward inclusivity, yet racial and social tensions persist in some communities.

What we are witnessing now, however, is far more consequential—an abrupt, top-down assault on scientific institutions emanating from what remains the world’s foremost scientific powerhouse.

Scientist: Yes, and this broader demonization of entire segments of the population—such as undocumented immigrants—is deeply concerning.

I have no idea where this is heading. Still, the United States is already notable for its extraordinarily high number of guns and the willingness of people to use them. If this kind of rhetoric continues, it is only a matter of time before it leads to violence.

Jacobsen: People in America already shoot each other over traffic disputes.

Scientist: I know.

I lived there for ten years, and while there were many things I enjoyed, I was glad to return to Europe. I was on faculty at a U.S. university several decades ago, but away from the campuses, the major cities and the coastal regions, the undercurrents of this ideology were even visible back then.

People act as though this shift in the U.S. is a shocking development, but this strain of the population has always existed. You could see it when I was there, in the people driving pickup trucks with gun racks.

To ignore this, you would have had to be willfully blind. If you actually spoke to people, it would have been clear that many of their attitudes were fundamentally incompatible with pragmatic, evidence-based reasoning.

What has changed is that this relatively large segment of the population now has a figurehead—someone who speaks for them. That has allowed their worldview to gain mainstream dominance.

Jacobsen: Yes, and it’s not just science under attack.

I spoke with an African American businesswoman deeply engaged in women’s rights advocacy in the U.S. She has already witnessed the rollback of reproductive rights, but her greatest fear is that the broader agenda of these reactionary forces has yet to fully target women as a whole.

She worries that once that shift occurs, the assault on rights and freedoms will intensify even further.

Scientist: But it could be coming. Abortion rights are just one aspect of this broader issue. That has so far been their priority—they are very active on this front.

It is not a far leap from restricting reproductive rights to undermining women’s rights more generally, including their position in society.

Jacobsen: Yes, and the challenges are especially pronounced for women in professional fields.

I recently attended a panel featuring Nobel Prize winners, including a physicist who won in 2023. She spoke about the immense pride she felt in following in Marie Curie’s footsteps.

Yet, she also reflected on how long it has taken for women to gain recognition at the highest levels of science. Even today, people look back at historic footage of Marie Curie walking into that vast auditorium—at the time, the only woman to have won two Nobel Prizes.

It is deeply concerning that even as meaningful progress is being made, we are witnessing severe legal rollbacks that threaten access, opportunity, and equality.

Scientist: Yes, maybe.

Germany is still far from achieving full gender equality, especially in higher academic ranks. However, among graduate students at my institute, the gender balance is approximately 40-60.

The same trend is evident among postdoctoral researchers.

Jacobsen: What are your final thoughts?

Scientist: The current situation is highly uncertain, which makes it all the more unsettling. We do not know what will happen next.

People must focus on the importance of science, independent thought, and scientific reasoning. It is critical to uphold institutions that foster these values and demonstrate their significance to society.

Jacobsen: Excellent.

Scientist: People should not hesitate to call things out for what they are. If something aligns with fascist tactics, we should say so without fear.

Jacobsen: Agreed. Thank you very much for your time today.