Political extremism creates ‘climate of anxiety’ for scientists

The rise of populism and anti-science rhetoric in some regions of Europe is demoralising researchers and innovators, and creating a “climate of anxiety” that makes scientific discovery more difficult, according to a study published this month.

This is just one of the ways in which the popularity of extreme parties on the far right and the far left is associated with a decline in research and innovation activity, say the authors of the study, which was published in the journal Research Policy.

Across the world, leaders including US President Donald Trump and Argentina’s Javier Milei have cut budgets, interfered in research and restricted international mobility. The study also points to examples in Europe, such as right-wing challenges to international programmes at Dutch universities. Meanwhile, researchers in Hungary have been feeling the effects of an EU funding ban in response to perceived government interference in academia.

“Many of these parties don’t need to be in power to actually make a difference,” co-author Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, a professor of economic geography at the London School of Economics, told Science|Business.

The paper cites regions such as Pas-de-Calais in France and Veneto and Lombardy in Italy, where support for far-right or nationalist parties has “contributed to rejection of EU research frameworks, isolating local innovation systems.”

The authors focused on impact at regional level, as that is where most research and innovation actions are implemented, even if the funding is national or European. In countries where universities have a high degree of autonomy, local or regional funding is often crucial, and the leadership of universities comes under extreme pressure from local leaders, Rodríguez-Pose said.

More generally, the rise of extreme parties “creates a hostile atmosphere for any sort of actor that is conducting research or is trying to do innovation,” he said. That is done by undermining the value of research, cutting funding, curbing academic independence, impeding researcher mobility and the creation of cross-border networks, and eroding trust in expertise.

“In places where these parties are far more dominant, the conditions for doing day-to-day research are far worse,” he said.

Left and right

Extreme parties are defined as anti-establishment, anti-elite and anti-liberal, while they often display nationalistic sentiment and a distrust of experts. The authors combined voting data from 2013-18 with data on scientific publications and patents between 2019 and 2021, controlling for other factors that influence research capacity such as regional wealth.

They found that support for extreme right-wing parties is negatively associated with scientific research, most likely due to funding cuts, ideological pressure on researchers and mistrust in academic institutions. It is likewise consistently connected to lower levels of technological innovation.

Unsurprisingly, extreme right-wing voting is strongly linked to lower levels of green research and innovation. When they are not engaging in climate change denial, far-right parties use affordability as justification to reject environmental regulations and green technologies.

Related articles

• Widening countries show innovation gain, but gap with other EU states remains
• Trump budget cuts hit CERN and other global science partnerships

The evidence for a connection between extreme left-wing voting and reduced scientific and technological output is “present but less conclusive,” according to the study, although support for the far left is not associated with lower levels of green research and innovation.

Far-left parties are typically less hostile towards science; however, the paper draws several parallels between the far left and the far right, from the rejection of globalisation and economic liberalism to attacks against corrupt elites. Politicians on both sides may also challenge the legitimacy of commercialising publicly funded innovations, which rhetoric, according to the authors, “suppresses innovation.”

They cite, for instance, left-wing populist Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who was president of Mexico until 2024 and cut research funding while accusing scientists of corruption. Parties on the far left also point to the inequalities generated by innovation in terms of access and impact on unemployment. 

Rodríguez-Pose acknowledged that people may have genuine concerns about technologies such as AI, which are likely to have an impact on jobs in the near future, while the impacts of research and innovation are not always felt equally. 

“I work on inequalities and I know that research and innovation are far more concentrated than any other of the economic and social indicators that I work with. Far more than wealth, far more than productivity, far more than employment,” he said.

However, he expects to see benefits from new technologies including AI in the long term. “My main stance is that innovation is always good for the progress of society,” he said. He pointed out that the analysis does not distinguish between different types of research or technology, which may or may not come with different risks, instead taking an overall view.

Vicious circle

The nature of the research does not allow for definitive conclusions to be made about extremism causing a decline in research activity, the authors note. However, Rodríguez-Pose said he was not overly concerned with causality as there are multiple factors at play. Moreover, populism and low levels of research and innovation are mutually reinforcing, creating a vicious circle.

“Support for extreme parties is likely to lead to lower innovation, as we show in our paper. But once you have lower innovation, you are creating more economic decline that is actually going to feed into anti-system positions,” he said.

That is something policymakers will need to address when seeking to close the innovation gap within Europe. The concentration of research investment in the largest cities is entrenching these differences and creating resentment in areas which were once prosperous but have experienced economic decline, said Rodríguez-Pose, who previously chaired a high-level group set up by the EU to advise on post-2027 cohesion policy.

“We now have a serious problem of too much concentration of innovation, wealth and high-end employment in certain areas, in an atmosphere in which more than a third of our voters are already voting for the extremes in national elections,” he said.

As the EU looks to close the innovation gap with the US and China, Rodríguez-Pose believes trying to catch up in areas such as AI, while a good idea in principle, risks further concentrating investment and overlooking the potential that exists throughout Europe in other sectors.