The debate around the freedom of scientific research is no longer limited by national or ideological borders. It stems from a warning raised in the United States but touches on issues which concern Europe and Italy: the politicisation of knowledge, epistemic exclusion, and the role of education in building an informed scientific citizenship.

While global attention is focused on the economic effects of tariffs and trade wars, a deeper and more structural alarm may go unnoticed. Around 1,900 US scientists, including numerous Nobel Prize winners, have raised their voices against the Trump administration’s policies, which they argue are seriously undermining scientific autonomy and endangering public health, the economy, and national security. In an open letter published in Scientific American and addressed to the American public, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine members describe what they call a literal “assault on science.”

This warning is not rhetorical. The early decisions of the Trump administration — communication blackouts, mass dismissals, cuts to federal agencies, institutionalised censorship, and the appointment of ideologically hostile figures — severely affected key institutions such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These agencies underpin not only the US scientific and healthcare system, but also play a strategic global role, setting standards, generating data, and influencing research and health policies worldwide, including in many European countries.

The greatest risk, researchers argue, is the erosion of the extreme principle of scientific independence, replaced by subordination to political and ideological interests. Once this principle is breached, the door opens to systemic misinformation and regression on hard-won advances in public well-being — from the fight against HIV and cancer immunotherapy to the development of COVID-19 vaccines. These achievements have been made possible by a research ecosystem that is free, cooperative, and evidence-based.

The seriousness of this threat is also reflected in the recent resignation letter from Peter Marks, Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. He wrote: “It has become clear that the Secretary does not want truth or transparency, but rather subordinate confirmation of his misinformation and lies.” This stark statement highlights the degree of manipulation facing the scientific system.

However, this hostile climate towards science is not confined to the United States. Similar trends — though subtler and less sensational — are emerging in Europe: political pressure on research content, attacks on university autonomy, chronic underfunding of public research, and the growing influence of anti-scientific narratives in the media and politics. The pandemic acted as a catalyst: while it highlighted the importance of science, it also fuelled suspicion, conspiracy theories, and hostility towards researchers and scientific institutions.

In countries such as Hungary and Poland, political interference has directly impacted university programmes, with the forced closure or reorganisation of institutions deemed “ideologically inconvenient.” In Italy, recent years have seen a systemic weakening of the research sector: structural underfunding, widespread job insecurity among young researchers, and increasing difficulty in attracting talent from abroad all pose a silent yet persistent threat to scientific excellence.

In the Italian context, there is also a growing need to reflect on the national guidelines for teaching civic education, which include scientific citizenship as one of three core pillars. These guidelines aim to foster informed and conscious citizenship, promoting science as a tool for understanding the world and supporting democratic participation. However, in practice, they sometimes risk offering a narrow and simplified view of science — portraying it as a set of objective, linear, and indisputable truths, devoid of conflict, doubt, or socio-historical context.

Without proper critical and epistemological reflection, this approach can reinforce a monolithic and Eurocentric vision of scientific knowledge. What is considered “scientific” often aligns with specific methods, paradigms, and languages that emerged mainly in Enlightenment-era Europe and the Global North. This raises not only the question “What counts as science?” but also “For whom?”, “To whose benefit?”, and “Within which power structures?”

As a result, other ways of knowing — such as Indigenous, feminist, decolonial, or community-based traditions — are marginalised or dismissed. These knowledge systems can be valid and transformative but fall outside the dominant scientific norms. Schools, even unintentionally, may thus reinforce a hierarchical and selective view of knowledge, legitimising certain forms while excluding others.

Little is said, for instance, about the role historical colonialism played in the development of modern science, or how many discoveries were built on the often forced appropriation of resources, information, and techniques from other cultures. Similarly, the patriarchal dimension that long excluded women (and still limits many female voices) from full scientific participation is often overlooked.
As sociologist Boaventura de Sousa Santos states, “There is no social justice without epistemic justice.” In education too, it is vital to promote a pluralistic, inclusive, and self-critical scientific culture — one that questions not only what is taught, even how it is taught and where that knowledge originates from.

In this light, scientific citizenship means educating students to recognise power dynamics in knowledge production, question science’s supposed neutrality, and develop a critical and situated perspective — one that values alternative epistemologies and historically marginalised viewpoints.

Only in this way can we shape truly informed citizens, not only, capable of applying science, but also of actively contributing to its evolution — asking who benefits, who is excluded, and how science can help build a fairer, more inclusive, and more sustainable future.

Epistemic colonialism and Western-centred thinking remain open wounds in research. Entire bodies of non-Western knowledge and traditions continue to be excluded or delegitimised. The power dynamics rooted in colonial history still influence the construction of “official science,” which tends to privilege Eurocentric, male-dominated, and sectoral viewpoints.

This erosion of public trust in science — driven by fake news, polarisation, and institutional distrust — represents a global democratic and cultural challenge. But it also presents an opportunity. Many international agencies — from UNESCO to the European Commission — are now promoting the paradigm of open science, calling for a more participatory, transparent, and socially and environmentally fair approach to research, aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda.

Scientific research is not a privilege for the elite, but a common good. Its independence, diversity, and accessibility are non-negotiable if we are to tackle global challenges seriously — from climate change and public health to energy transition and inequality.
Therefore, the message from the 1,900 US scientists is of universal relevance. It is a call to reimagine the role of knowledge in contemporary society. Do we want science to be free, transparent, open, and pluralistic? Or do we wish to keep it bound by dominant political, economic, or cultural interests?

What is needed are brave political decisions, stronger dialogue between science and society, and a renewed alliance among institutions, education systems, and active citizenship. Only then can we build a society equipped to face the future with foresight, justice, and resilience.

And the first step, now more than ever, is not to remain indifferent.