Harris or Trump? It Is Also a Critical Juncture For Science

The outcome of the U.S. election does not only affect Europe’s defense. For the future of science, too, it is decisive whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump enters the White House, according to our guest author, president of the Max Planck Society.

For decades, the U.S. has set the standard for science. But for some time now, the American research motor has sputtered. In a few years, China, not America, will be the country investing the most in research. China has already surpassed the U.S. in the number of publications in the natural and technological sciences.

Now, many American scientists fear a second term for Donald Trump. According to the database Silencing Science Tracker, Trump’s former administration was responsible for 346 activities that were hostile toward science. In addition to censorship and misrepresentation of research data, there was the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, in association with Trump’s statement, “I don’t think science knows, actually.”

Based on this experience, many U.S. scientists are hoping for a science-friendly administration under Kamala Harris. They are assuming that Harris will continue international collaborations and ease restrictions on recruiting scientific talent. Because the U.S. has been and still is heavily dependent on foreign skilled workers, the country’s partial isolationism under Trump represents a blow for American science.

Trump and Harris are unlikely to differ much in their stance toward China. Thanks to Trump’s China Initiative, the number of scientific publications with China decreased. The trend toward less collaboration with China is continuing under Joe Biden and is negatively impacting progress.

For more than a year, the U.S. and China have been negotiating an extension of their scientific cooperation and innovation agreement. No détente is in sight, because Harris, too, wants to keep the U.S. in a leadership position.

In this geopolitical situation, European science needs to make its own way forward. First, we must continue collaborating with the U.S., independent of the election outcome. Second, we should continue working with China and avoid taking risks when doing so. Finally, we need to strengthen cooperation within the European scientific landscape and incorporate non-EU countries as well, like Great Britain, Switzerland and Israel.

The policies of the former Trump administration did not only inhibit international cooperation. They also caused a politicization of science. This politicization could increase, because the conservative Project 2025 and Trump’s campaign program Agenda 47 want to decrease scientists’ influence on politics. For that reason, the Biden administration has already taken measures to secure the scientific integrity of researchers in government institutions.

Alternative Facts Hurt Academic Discourse

More than ever, this U.S. election is about the relationship between science and politics. What is clear is that the political process needs to incorporate scientific evidence. Facts must be recognized if one is to negotiate consensus in a democracy. That is exactly what Trumpism undermines with its “alternative facts.” It thus strengthens culture wars that harm democratic debate just as much as academic discourse.

A politics in the U.S. that is hostile to science would have consequences well beyond the country’s borders. It could impede research and progress, give China a leading role in research and innovation, and even alter the ideals of the scientific system. For that reason, science in Germany and Europe needs to proactively administer its interests.