Anti-science attitudes on the rise: academic freedom at risk
Hello to all, or maybe, “greetings comrades” in the spirit of May Day eve! I am Mikko Poutanen, a postdoctoral grant researcher here at Tampere University under the degree programme for politics. I have been researching university democracy and structures and opportunities of academic self-governance in Finland in our UNIDEMO research project and was also actively involved in the Tampere university merger. I was honoured to be asked by Tatte to deliver this May Day speech, and I thought that this time I would not be talking about university democracy, because it tends to depress people.
Instead, I decided to talk about something else, that would be equally depressing. Today, despite May Day being a day of celebrating spring, I want to talk to you briefly about the rising trend of anti-science, both internationally and here in Finland. The reason why I find it important is that anti-science attitudes are trending up. While I have not encountered anti-science attitudes directly in the sense of having been personally targeted, I have witnessed colleagues being targeted and their work dragged through the mud. This means anti-science experiences are not necessarily equally shared even within the scientific community. This also makes evaluating the problem less uniform across disciplines.
Specific disciplines and topics of research are much more frequently targeted, such as gender studies, climate change and migration studies. According to the annual science barometer in Finland, Finns have relatively high trust in science in the abstract. However, there are party-political differences to this trust. This is an important consideration in a higher education system based on public funding. A blatant example of this in Finland was the political intervention in the strategic research council themes in November 2023, when “immigration” as a topic, if not approached specifically from the perspective of its related harms, was judged politically unacceptable.
As the editor-in-chief for Politiikasta, a web-journal popularizing social science research, I encountered this quite often, directed at the content we published. One such experience inspired me to write critically about the discursive patterns of anti-science in social media debates in Finland. Funding decisions by the Academy of Finland became central points of contestation. I found that previously ideologically motivated anti-science critique against specific topics and disciplines was able to change its discursive colours to represent itself as responsible fiscal management.
The issue was no longer about fields of research that these people found objectionable because they did not like them: the issue was that they were not presented profitable research projects, which would not return on public investment. Given the debate over public finances in Finland, this new line of critique could represent itself as unpolitical, and as simple financial calculus. At the same time, however, it reflects the basic tenets of austerity discourse, which sets very specific instrumental value to very specific things in society, labelling others as valueless or waste.
Again, this does not apply to all disciplines equally: STEM research has a much more positive perception of creating value for the economy and society. This is not a fault of these disciplines, but rather a cultural tendency of Finnish society: ever since Nokia we have perceived ourselves as the global reserve for engineers.
This change also means anti-science attitudes are not a simple class question. While some in lower socio-economic standing may engage in anti-science attitudes, it is now just as likely that Finnish anti-science attitudes are displayed by well-off engineers or entrepreneurs living in Espoo, or by members of parliament in predominantly right-wing parties. Anti-science opinions can also emerge as opportunistic journalism, or, at worst, feeding into the polarizing culture of competition within academia.
The depoliticizing aspect of anti-science attitudes also relates to defining things that are judged important in society and what are not, which IS a political choice. This also fits in well with the current discourse of being a net-taxpayer, or a net-receiver of social benefits in Finland. Who is worthy and productive, and who is not. It is above all else a moral discourse, even though it represents itself as simple, rational and objective calculus.
Secondly, money indeed plays a role. There was a recent article in Nature, which noted that anti-science critique has also been mobilized by moneyed interests: different industries and businesses have sought to undermine critical research for decades. For example, the fossil fuel industry has downplayed even their own research that confirmed the reality of climate change. In Finland the forestry industry has a direct vested interest in maintaining current levels of forestry consumption, despite concerns of worsening sustainability.
Finally, this leads us to the elephant in the Oval Office (in the White House). While the universities being a party to the so-called culture wars in the US hardly is anything new, this new strain of anti-science activity and censorship of public research all under the false banner of freedom of speech is exceptionally blatant, cruel, and purposeful. In conservative MAGA ideology, the words “woke” or “DEI”, just to name a few, have become lazy labels associated with all the ills that have plagued the United States, and they must be purged. Freedom of speech for academics is being eroded at an alarming rate, and you best believe far-right parties in Europe and elsewhere are taking note. They are realising, that with sufficient power, you can just “do it”. Public education has become less a common cause and more a partisan issue.
There is danger in academics having become complacent in their assumptions that the institutions of liberal democracy will hold, because we haven’t seriously contemplated how fragile their protections are. Bear in mind, universities can exist as institutions, albeit very different ones, also under authoritarian regimes and even violent repression. There is nothing magical about these institutions: they are made of people. Yes, academics can be comparatively privileged people. But it seems, as the political winds turn, that academics can also become vulnerable people.
This is finally where I return back to the significance of today: it is May Day. In Finland it has historically been a day of celebration, but also of solidarity, among workers and the student union. In the university of all places, the students and the academic workers labour together for the sake of science, for knowledge as a public good, and for the betterment of not just narrow national self-interest, but of all mankind. This is an ideal, yes, but above all else it is an ideal worth having and defending.
We need solidarity with international colleagues in general, but especially when they are threatened. This applies to Turkey, Hungary, South Korea, or now, even the United States. There is a reason why authoritarians attack universities and academics, and at the root of that reason is their fear over free thinking and speaking. Anti-science sentiment can be realised in anti-science policies.
Speaking in Tatte’s event, in a labour union event, it is self-evident, that academics must also be political. Being apolitical, nonpolitical, are whatever else you choose to keep your head down, that is a choice you make that makes the university weaker. By defending your colleagues, in whatever form you choose, also defends the university as an institution.
These changes can creep on us. Currently, the university employers in Finland are pushing for harsh terms in the ongoing negotiations for the collaborative working conditions contract while the new funding outlines for higher education, released last week, bode dark times ahead for Finnish academia and academics. The university employer has never been the most forthcoming negotiator, and this round has been no different, but they are also supported indirectly by political policy. Staff salaries are seen as a burden to university finances, and the employer wants us to teach more – without current restrictions. This would mean a clearer separation into teaching-intensive, and research-intensive roles and worsening work-life balance.
The removal of the cap of teaching hours also fits well within the current government’s plan to increase student intake: more teaching with limited to no additional resources will deepen the cuts the government also elected to make in the basic funding of Finnish higher education. So, in this case, right-wing government policy and employer negotiation strategy seem to align very nicely. That means a difficult struggle for higher education and us – the academic labour force. This struggle may mean more determined measures of resistance, such as strike action – currently slated for Wednesday May 7th.
Even when darker and darker clouds gather over the institute of science, and scientific institutions, it is up to the members of those institutions, and the beneficiaries of the freedoms bestowed by those institutions, to remember our own public duty. May Day is thus also an opportunity to celebrate that duty not as a burden, but as promise of a better tomorrow.
With this, I wish everyone gathered here, and to everyone at this university, and all universities around the world, an inspirational and energetic May Day! Thank you!
Apurahatutkija Mikko Poutanen / Grant researcher Mikko Poutanen