Six Principles for Supporting Academic Freedom in Universities
Sarah de Rijcke | 21 September 2026 | Nature
The university I lead is more than four centuries old and has seen political orders rise and fall. I have not, but I work each day in an institution that remembers those changes — in its archives, statutes and culture of argument. The conditions that make knowledge trustworthy, such as independent peer review, openness about methods and data and the ability to correct earlier work, are changing in ways that reach the core of what a university is for.
Those conditions are under pressure in a growing number of countries, and the familiar tools of quiet diplomacy, internal negotiation and isolated warnings no longer keep up with the pace of change. For example, in the past decade, governments in various countries have narrowed the space for independent evidence in different ways.
In the United States, changes to research-funding mechanisms and programme priorities in areas such as climate science and gender research, and the sidelining of environmental and public-health expertise, have shown how quickly political decisions can affect the systems that produce independent evidence (see go.nature.com/4hgg3ym and go.nature.com/4zzmtur). European academies have voiced their concerns in public statements on the pressures facing US science and international collaboration1–2 (see also go.nature.com/4a3pn9s).
In Hungary, a sustained legal campaign around foreign higher-education institutions drove Budapest’s Central European University out of the country to Vienna in 2019. In 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union found those legal changes incompatible with EU law4,5. The political landscape in Hungary has shifted since then, but the legal tools used and the damage to institutional autonomy and academic freedom remain instructive.
Elsewhere, grant language is being rewritten to steer funding priorities towards favoured themes such as economic competitiveness, innovation and national security. Access to public data in sensitive areas such as climate and health is being reduced, and researchers are adapting proposals accordingly, sometimes by avoiding or adding certain topics or terms to maximize their chances in the next funding round.
The details differ, yet the pattern is familiar to many of us who work in universities. One question keeps returning: when governments or funders intervene in universities, do they strengthen or weaken the checks that make knowledge trustworthy?