The movement that emerged in the US following the cancellation of grants and political interference in research is establishing an international organization in Switzerland. In Israel, a struggle is already underway over the composition of the National Academy of Sciences, research budgets, statements by university heads, and the buffer between the political echelon and the scientific system.
Movement Stand Up for Science, which emerged in the United States in response to the cancellation of research grants and increasing political interference in the science system, is expanding its activities outside the United States. The movement announced the establishment of Stand Up for Science International as a non-profit organization in Switzerland, with the aim of assisting organizations that support evidence-based science and protecting research freedom in additional countries.
In an interview with Science|Business, the movement's founder and CEO, Colette DeLavalle, warned that Europe could experience a spillover of methods already in use in the US. She said it was important for scientists and research institutions to organize before political pressure turned into a system of restrictions, grant cancellations, and oversight of research fields.
The warning is also relevant to Israel. Although there is no mechanism similar to the American one for examining grants by political appointees, in recent years a struggle has developed over the composition of the The Higher Education Council, the independence of the Planning and Budgeting Committee, the use of budgets as a means of pressure, and the right of university heads to express a position on issues that affect science and society.
From a protest organization to a political movement for science
Stand Up for Science was founded in February 2025, afterTrump administration It began to cancel research grants on topics deemed politically undesirable, including research on LGBTQ, diversity, public health, and HIV. The movement organized protests and gradually became an organization that supported candidates it defined as pro-science.
In August 2025, President Donald Trump signed an order directing federal agencies to appoint political appointees to review grants based on government priorities and the “national interest.” The order states that peer review committee recommendations are not binding and that appointees will exercise independent judgment in selecting grants.
A broad set of proposed regulations to implement the changes to the federal grant system was also published in May 2026. As of this writing, the proposal is not yet complete, but it illustrates the direction: increasing the ability of the political echelon to review, modify, or terminate funding even after a proposal has passed scientific review.
The confrontation with Harvard University illustrated how far the interference could go. In an April 2025 letter, the administration demanded that the university conduct an external review of the “diversity of views” in each department. Where an imbalance was found, Harvard was required to admit or appoint a “critical mass” of students and faculty to create ideological balance. Harvard rejected the demands, arguing that they infringed on its independence and constitutional rights.
Elected governments are allowed to set national priorities and decide how much public money will be spent on research. The problem begins when professional scrutiny is replaced by consideration of whether the research aligns with the president's or government's positions, and when a grant can be canceled because its possible outcomes are inconvenient for the government.
Is Europe facing a similar process?
Delaval warns that the rise of far-right parties in Europe could lead to the adoption of similar methods. However, it is important to distinguish between policies already implemented and concerns about the future.
According to Science|Business, the National Union in France's platforms are currently almost completely silent on university and science policy. In the past, the party has even pledged to increase investment in research and support student exchanges and European technological projects. The more practical risks concern the possibility of cuts to France's participation in the EU budget and immigration restrictions that would make it difficult to recruit researchers and students.
In Britain, Reform UK has proposed imposing financial penalties on universities that allow, it claims, political bias or a “cancellation culture.” In the German state of Saxony-Anhalt, Alternative Germany has proposed abolishing gender studies and postcolonial studies, while at the same time funding what it calls “critical” research on climate and Islam.
These steps do not yet match the scale of the system taking shape in the United States. But Delawala warns that the process could begin with an attack on a particular institution, a single field of research or a single grant. “It starts with sowing distrust in institutions,” she said.
In Israel, the fear is no longer theoretical.
The Minister of Education also serves by law as the Chairman of the Council for Higher Education. During his term of office, יואב קיש An ongoing conflict developed between him and the heads of research universities over the composition of the Council, its appointments, and its powers. And T.T., the budgets of the institutions and the right of their heads to express themselves on public matters.
One of the areas of conflict was the appointment of Prof. Dodi Schwartz as Vice Chairman of the Council, a position whose holder actually manages a significant portion of the council's activities. After a lengthy struggle, Kish managed to form a majority for the appointment, and in December 2025, Schwartz officially took office. University leaders claimed that the move weakened the practice of making decisions in coordination with the academic system. Kish and his supporters claimed that it corrected a situation in which research universities held too much power.
In January 2026, a bill by an MK was debated. Avichai Boaron To change the structure of the NLG and the Planning and Budgeting Committee. According to the proposal, the government will be able to take over the NLG's powers on issues it defines as of national importance, the Minister of Education's influence on appointments will be expanded, and the independent status of the NLG will be reduced.
The presidents of nine universities warned that the proposal would turn professional appointments into positions of trust and give the government direct influence over the higher education budget. In a statement and the university presidents' committee It reads: "The bill constitutes an attempt by politicians to take over science and groundbreaking research."
According to Varah, the independence of the Council of State and the Council of State is intended to serve as a buffer between the political echelon and professional decisions regarding research, teaching, and budget allocation. Weakening this buffer could, according to university leaders, harm international grants, scientific collaborations, the recruitment of researchers, and Israel's status as a research and technology center.
The bill's sponsors argued, on the other hand, that the NLC needed public oversight, transparency, and better representation of the will of the voters. The proposal has not yet become law, but it served as a means of pressure in the ensuing conflict.
From a budgetary threat to "institutional neutrality"
In May 2026, Kish demanded that university leaders commit to refraining from promoting “political agendas” on campuses. The demand included a commitment not to take a political stance on behalf of the institution, to ensure the continuity of studies, and to prevent shutdowns and disruptions stemming from political struggles.
Kish made it clear that if the institutions do not sign the commitment, the government will advance legislation that will also allow for the imposition of budgetary sanctions. According to him, a public institution is not allowed to use public funds, its powers or its status to promote a political position, and university presidents who wish to operate in the partisan arena can run in elections.
The University Presidents' Committee responded that the ultimatum allows the minister to define his own political position and use the budget to silence opposition. The response from the University Presidents' Committee stated: "We will not allow the Minister of Education to drag academia into his political survival struggles."
In July, the Council of State approved a statement on the subject of “institutional neutrality.” According to the resolution, higher education institutions and their leaders will not take a political position on behalf of the institution and will not use their status, powers, or institutional resources to advance a political struggle. The resolution states that the personal freedom of expression of faculty and students is preserved.
Critics of the decision warn that the term “political” is broad and vague. A university may be required to address policies that directly concern research, higher education, democracy, public health, or the climate crisis. The question is who will determine when professional expression becomes a prohibited political position, and whether the definition will be applied equally.
That same month, five members of the Council of State resigned in protest of the law that expanded the possibility of conducting gender-segregated studies to include advanced degrees: Prof. Idit Tshuva, Prof. Marcel Makhlouf, Prof. Jihad Al-Sana, Prof. Lia Laor, and Moshe Vigdor, former Director General of the Council of State.
The resigning members defined the legislation as an unprecedented interference in the independence of the National Council of Academics and an infringement on academic freedom, equality, and excellence. Supporters of the law claimed that it would allow populations who do not study in mixed settings to also integrate into advanced studies. The case illustrated how the Knesset can change through legislation a policy previously determined by the professional body.
The difference between science oversight and science control
There are differences between the US and Israel. The Trump administration seeks to introduce political appointees directly into the processes of selecting, monitoring, and canceling grants. In Israel, pressure is exerted primarily through the composition of the NAC, powers and mandates, institutional budgets, and restrictions on institutional expression.
The common principle is the importance of the buffer between elected officials and professional bodies. Public research budgets must be subject to supervision, control, and transparency. However, the quality of a research proposal should be judged by its methods, data, scientific importance, and peer review rules – not by the political allegiance of the researchers or the alignment of possible conclusions with the will of the government.
A position that supportsIndependence of science It does not require support for a particular party. It means opposition to a situation in which the government determines in advance which scientific results are permissible, which questions are permissible, and which institutions will be punished for professional criticism.
The fight against misuse in medical research
Stand Up for Science's international activities are not limited to universities in Europe. The movement is trying to establish a mechanism with scientific organizations in Africa to monitor medical trials conducted in poor countries with external funding.
The main case is a trial designed in Guinea-Bissau to test giving a dose of hepatitis B vaccine immediately after birth. As part of the study, some babies received the vaccine at birth, while others had the birth dose delayed.
The World Health Organization has expressed significant concerns about the scientific justification, study design, and ethical safeguards. The organization emphasized that vaccinating infants within 24 hours of birth is a proven means of preventing mother-to-child transmission of the virus, and that withholding proven treatment could expose infants to chronic infection, cirrhosis, and liver cancer.
The Bandim project researchers, who designed the study, rejected the criticism, saying their goal was to test other health effects of vaccines. In February, Guinea-Bissau authorities announced they were halting the study. The controversy illustrates another risk: funding trials in the hope of achieving a result that will justify a predetermined political position, while transferring the risk to vulnerable populations.
Questions and Answers
What is Stand Up for Science? An American movement that emerged in 2025 in response to grant cancellations, cuts, and political interference in the science system. It organizes protests, supports candidates it defines as pro-science, and is now establishing international operations in Switzerland.
Is a government allowed to determine which areas of research will receive priority? Yes. A government may set national priorities and oversee the use of public funds. The red line is crossed when political loyalty replaces scientific scrutiny or when grants and institutions are penalized for conclusions that are inconvenient to the government.
How is the struggle for the independence of science expressed in Israel? In the conflicts over the composition of the National Council of Universities, independence and the National Council of Universities, budget distribution, MK Boaron's bill, the minister's demand for institutional neutrality, and the threat of sanctions on universities that take a stand.
Is a position supporting science a partisan position? Not necessarily. Supporting science means that research will be tested according to methods, data, and peer review, and that governments will not predetermine what results researchers are allowed to reach.
More on the subject on the science website
- Presidents of the Nine Universities to the Minister of Education: Stop Boaron's Bill to Change the National Council of Universities
- Trump's grant rules could isolate American science
- Scientists Rise Up to Oppose Trump Policies
- What does Trump want from universities?
- What can Israel learn from 250 years of American science?
For the original publication: Opening the original publication
5 תגובות
Eli's responses, especially the repeated spelling errors in them, indicate his "high" level...
The independence of science is critical to its success; we all depend on it.
Eli. Without democracy there is no higher education. We can already see this in Kish's attempts to politicize the universities. What will happen when he has absolute power with judges who judge?
Is it the government's job to determine whether climate science is correct or not or is it the job of the scientists who study the issue and that is the consensus?
zeroes
I would also add that the political stances taken by faculty members and lecturers, and even at the university level, during the protest against government policy regarding the Israeli judicial system, did not add a positive light to public opinion in Israel regarding universities.
When science is butchered with political views and improper motives, the results are almost always negative.
If they don't want politicians to interfere with them, they should stop sticking their noses into politics.
Academia in the US (and not only) has become corrupt, its credibility has been significantly damaged, foreign elements (also outside the United States) who want to promote political agendas are using academia as a tool.
One of the evidences of this is the demonstrations against Israel on various campuses in the US and Europe. The silencing of criticism of universities and the continued making of decisions based on racial motives in universities has not helped the situation.
Although the scientific slaughter is mainly in the faculties of social sciences and humanities, it is enough to create a negative effect even at the level of state politics.