How to keep Ukraine’s research hopes alive

Adam Levy: 00:03

Hello, I’m Adam Levy and this is Working Scientist, a Nature Careers podcast. This episode: the invasion of Ukraine.

Adam Levy: 00:17

At its heart research is about the search for fundamental truths, the aspiration of putting the subjective aside to find something deeper, more universal.

But the truth is that research is shaped by the people who carry it out, their lives, experiences, and the society in which they perform their work. And the freedom and safety of researchers to conduct their science has a dramatic influence not just on the scientists themselves, but on research as a whole.

That’s why in this series, we’re looking at many different aspects of freedom and safety within research, from carrying out science in collapsing economies, to dealing with harassment, both in the lab and online.

Each episode in this series also concludes with a follow-up sponsored slot from the International Science Council, the ISC, about how it’s exploring freedom, responsibility and safety in science.

In today’s episode, we’re looking at an event which has devastated the lives of scientists and ground research projects to a halt: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Today we will speak with a Ukrainian scientist working on a new type of education, and an Arctic researcher who will explain how the war is hampering vital studies.

But first, I spoke with neuroscientist Nana Voitenko, of the Kiev Academic University, who is also scientific adviser to the minister of education and science of Ukraine.

Her life and work has been up ended by war. When we spoke, I asked her how the research landscape had been altered since the war broke out on the 24 February 2022.

Nana Voitenko: 2:05

I would say on national scale, science in Ukraine has suffered enormous damage. According to the ministry of education and science, out of as far as I remember 314 scientific institutes and universities, 73 were damaged and six were completely destroyed. And another big problem is that about 15% of scientists went abroad. Some of them have no place to return to.

And some may not want to return because they ended up in better conditions than they had in Ukraine. So I think it will lead to a big brain drain. And this is a big problem for Ukrainian science.

Adam Levy: 2:52

And how has the invasion affected you personally, both in your life and for your work?

Nana Voitenko: 2:59

Oh, yeah, it was a terrible situation. I remember that first day. Then my son, who lives in the United States, called me at 5am and said that the war had began and that Kviv was being bombed, and that I should immediately leave the city.

At first, I really did not believe it. I said that it was a stupid joke to wake me up. I want to sleep.

But when I heard the explosions that seems to be very close to my place. Of course, the dream was taken away.

During that first day, I received a call from my friends from the US who are close to diplomatic circles, and they said that there is reliable information about the plans of Russians to seize Kiev, kill the government and its most active supporters.

And after that people with an active pro-Ukrainian position will be sent to concentration camp. So with my active position I have repeatedly posted on Facebook pro-Ukrainian posts.

In addition, Russian propaganda these days began to intensively disperse the information about biological laboratories, which are funded by the US government, which conduct genetic experiments to create biological weapons against Russia.

We just realized that this is just about us. We are doing genetic research and this research is supported by an NIH grant.

Such nuances, that we are trying to find a cure for chronic pain rather than invent equipments, would hardly have worried by Russian agression. So we decided to leave Kiev. Next day after the invasion, we took the guys from our laboratories with us and when to Carpathian mountains. It was very realy very scary to leave. I was afraid that I would never return to my apartment back to Kiev.

They also did not now, if you would get to Bukovel, because they were bombing and shooting around. It was really very, very scary. Immediately behind us when we passed the bridge across the river, that bridge was blown up. They were no way back either.

They drove non-stop for 22 hours. So we reached Bukovel. And we were glad to be saved. But we were very worried about those who remained in Kiev.

Many important events were planned for March and April 2022. And everything had to be cancelled. Another heavy blow was the complete sequestration of the National Research Foundation’s budget. It was transferred for the needs of army.

So our laboratories had to fulfill two large grants from this National Research Foundation. And these studies had to be postponed.

But you know, every cloud has a silver lining. The fact that two years before the war, we learned to work remotely, thanks to COVID, helped us a lot. That they continued to work. They analyze data, wrote articles, they delivered lectures to students, and even organize the Brain Awareness Week. We return to Kiev at the end of April, Then the Kiev region was liberated.

And fortunately, our laboratories were not physically damaged. But of course, I had to revise the plan that this is just a delay, I believe.

Adam Levy: 6:36

And what is the research situation for you now in Kiev? Are you able to, to some extent, continue where you left off? Or is it hard to get things started again? Is there a cloud hanging over you now?

Nana Voitenko: 6:39

You see they started. In summer we even did experiments. But unfortunately, big problems began after October 10. Then Russia began bombing civilian infrastructure and residential areas. So on October 10, I remember I was literally thrown out of the bed early in the morning.

And pictures fell from the walls, because a rocket flew just 20 metres from our house, and it was very, very scary. And then the blackouts started.

Then in the labs, everything was much more difficult. It was necessary to provide electricity for refrigerators, freezers, incubators.

By the way, the problem was not so much in money, but in the purchase itself. Accumulators, batteries, generators, instantly ran out in Ukraine. And we bought them in Poland and in Czech Republic. So autumn and winter were very difficult for our research. Due to the lack of heat, for example, laboratory animals in our vivarium experienced cold stress. I would say no time was wasted. But the experimental work slowed down substantially.

We were able to organize internships for our fellows and students abroad. So many universities, you know, in Europe, and the US, accepted our guys so they can do some research there.

And now, the situation is much better. So no, no blackouts anymore. And so we started to return back to our almost normal experimental life.

Adam Levy: 8:38

You mentioned that the COVID pandemic had in a way sort of trained you for working remotely, but at the same time coming out of one really serious disruption, and then into this conflict. Did these two crises compound each other in any way?

Nana Voitenko: 08:55

Well, of course, because we have some slowing down during COVID. And some of our grants were postponed, or extended, or freeze. The military crisis was superimposed not only with the crisis of COVID, but also on the crisis of science that existed in Ukraine, even before the war and even before the COVID.

Underfunding, inefficient ways of financing and managing of science, lack of peer review, lack of evaluation of performance indicators, all this greatly hindered the development of science in the country. And it was over the 30 years of independence. And we desperately need reforms and deregulations.

Adam Levy: 9:52

How do you think researchers and research institutions around the world can contribute to that vision of not only restoring research in Ukraine, but perhaps modernising it as well?

Nana Voitenko: 10:05

I think many, many institutions would like to help, they would like to invest in the development of our country, many universities in Europe and the US, who help our colleagues to find the temporary shelter in their universities and institutions. And that helped us a lot to survive. And I really appreciate this help.

Adam Levy: 10:31

When you look at how much academia in Ukraine has been disrupted, not just your own work, but the academic landscape in general, how does that make you feel as someone who’s really built their career in the country?

Nana Voitenko: 10:46

Huh, it’s disrupted, of course, but you see the scientists themselves now try somehow to help the system to be reloaded. A lot of, for example, my fellows, especially young ladies who left country with their kids, to protect them, but they would like to return back to family, because there has been some here.

Of course, it will take time. But finally, we will somehow be able to restore our science.

Adam Levy: 11.21

Is there anything that you really think the international community should be aware of about research in Ukraine that isn’t really being spoken about in the time that we speak, just over a year that the war has been going on?

Nana Voitenko: 11:37

The international community needs to know that we are ready to work here in Ukraine, and we are ready to accept their help. And we are ready to do our best to restore science and education here. Because we have a lot of possibility and our Ukrainian diaspora also would like to help us and we are ready to accept this help. And to restore science here.

Adam Levy: 12:08

That was Nana Voitenko. As Nana mentioned, many Ukrainians have fled the country, but for people at the start of their academic journeys, still in education, such disruption comes at a pivotal point for physicist and climate scientists, Liubov Poshyvailo-Strube, when the war broke out, it was vital to take action to keep educational opportunities alive. Liubov is based at the Forschungszentrum Jülich in Germany. And she is also a Ukrainian.

Liubov Poshyvailo-Strube: 12:39

I was born in Ukraine. So I studied there, my university my bachelor. I graduated from my bachelor. I decided to write my master thesis in Germany. And since that time, I am in Germany. So in Ukraine I lived for around 23 years.

Adam Levy: 13:01

Liubov is also a member of the executive team of the Ukrainian Global University, abbreviated to UGU. More on this very different university in a moment.

But first, Liubov shared some of the impacts of the war on the lives of Ukrainian scientists.

Liubov Poshyvailo-Strube: 13:20

The life of every Ukrainian, obviously, was changed during the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

And the usual routine of students and scientists was not an exception. Thousands of students and scientists had to flee abroad to continue their study or career in safe conditions.

In Ukraine, there are daily air alarms, and that just makes the process of study, of work, often impossible.

Often educational institutions they don’t have proper bomb shelters, or constant power supply, internet supply.

Adam Levy: 13:57

Just on a personal level, what does it mean to you to see this scale of disruption to Ukrainian academia?

Liubov Poshyvailo-Strube: 14:05

I think that to absorb war, in general, in your own country, it’s hard. Even to be not sitting there but to absorb that from the news, from talking to your parents, from the distance, that’s hard in general.

And the first three days of the war they were just endless for everyone, not only in academia. To see the level of damage everywhere, it’s hard. It’s heartbreaking. And seeing that a lot of educational institutions were just bombed, a lot of schools are bombed.

For me. I’m thinking with all of that, how current generation of scientists, of kids, how they will accept all of this? It is just heartbreaking.

Adam Levy: 14:54

So I suppose to in part to try and combat this disruption you’ve been involved with the Ukrainian global university or UGU? Can you explain what the UGU actually is?

Liubov Poshyvailo-Strube: 15:07

At the beginning of the war, it was not clear what people should do. Everyone just tried to make something useful. With that a lot of new initiatives were launched, and one of them was the Ukranian Global University, abbreviated to UGU, which I’m representing today.

UGU was launched in March 2022, during the first weeks of the Russian invasion. The initiative was founded by the Kiev School of Economics, together with partners from the government, educational institutions and civil society organizations. And it aims to identify talented students, teachers, scientists in Ukraine, provide them with new educational and research opportunities with the help of the international community and donors, and facilitate their careers in Ukraine for rebuilding the country.

One of the main goals also of the UGU is to preserve and multiply human capital of Ukraine, as it is important for the strong development of the country for the postwar recovery. So each of these students they aim to come back to Ukraine and to rebuild the country after the war.

Adam Levy: 16:20

Can you give a sense of the scale of the Ukrainian global university? Just how many? How many people is it supporting?

Liubov Poshyvailo-Strube: 16:27

Since the launch of the program UGU brought together more than 60 world’s best educational institutions. And on the other hand, UGU gathered a large network of volunteers.

Also, within first two months of the initiative, during the application process, UGU received more than 2500 applications from Ukrainian students.

And then about 60 students were selected by UGU partners, and they already started their studies abroad this academic year.

Adam Levy: 17:03

What are the limitations of this form of education that the UGU is modeling?

Liubov Poshyvailo-Strube: 17:07

During the first year of UGU, UGU also faced some difficulties. And one of them, for example, is that men between the age of 18 to 60 nowadays cannot leave Ukraine. We are thinking of when we talk to the partners, we need to communicate this issue properly. UGU could create some program, for example, for students who are in Ukraine now, like, research internships in Ukraine, or non-residential research fellowships, so men who are in Ukraine and who cannot leave Ukraine now, due to the restrictions because of the war, they also could study in Ukraine.

Adam Levy: 17:48

How do you feel having been able to work with the UGU and to be able to, to offer the services that the UGU has offered so many researchers and young academics?

Liubov Poshyvailo-Strube: 18:00

For me, it is just a simple human need to contribute now to Ukraine to help Ukraine during the war. I also could say that UGU at the first year, it was purely volunteer work for many of us. And I was impressed how Ukrainians, so not only Ukrainians, could gather together without any payment, basically.

And they could work efficiently for providing support for Ukrainian students. So that was just great.

Adam Levy: 18:33

What are the prospects or potential challenges for reestablishing academic institutions in Ukraine after the conflict?

Liubov Poshyvailo-Strube: 18:42

It’s a hard question, a bit philosophical, maybe, One of the challenges in general to move back people that left Ukraine. One of the challenges is that these people saw different life, let’s say, a different organization in the society.

So there must be something that can attract these people back. And this is the huge challenge. I think every student that submitted the application for the UGU, they really have the wish and the hope to restore Ukraine after the war.

But the question is also how long this vision will be kept there. And how Ukrainian government could contribute to increasing this motivation of people to come back.

I think this will be the huge challenge.

Adam Levy: 19:37

That was Liubov Poshyvailo-Strube. It clear just how much the war has disrupted science and scientists within Ukraine. But the truth is that the impacts to research go far beyond the borders of this nation.

Science is international, and Russia plays a crucial role in many research collaborations. But the war has called that into question, and all the academic ties and teams have been threatened.

Matthew Druckenmiller is based at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado Boulder in the United States.

For many years, he’s been focused on Arctic research.

Matthew Druckenmiller: 20:18

And I’ve also in recent years, in addition to my role as a research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, I’m also the director of an office called the Navigating the new Arctic community office.

Adam Levy: 20:31

I wanted to speak with Matthew about how Arctic research has been impacted by this war.

But first he shared with me just how broad the field of Arctic science is.

Matthew Druckenmiller: 20:42

Well, it probably comes as no surprise. Much of Arctic research today is connected in some way to climate change. The changing climate is impacting Arctic environments, Arctic economies, essentially everything you can imagine.

I would say that the Arctic, (and of course, I’m biased, because I’ve spent most of my research career working in the Arctic). But I would say that the Arctic really is an example of highly interdisciplinary research, and also research that in the last several decades has made great strides and working in greater collaboration with Indigenous communities.

Adam Levy: 21:18

So how then does the war in Ukraine affect Arctic science and the ability of scientists to work in the Arctic?

Matthew Druckenmiller: 21:27

Russia geographically spans an enormous portion of the Arctic. Within the Arctic region, Russia occupies a huge percentage of both the land in the marine environment.

And I think Russia has over 50% of Arctic coastline. And so the war in Ukraine has a very direct impact on scientific studies in the Arctic scientific observations, purely because collaboration with countries outside of Russia is severely limited. Access to the Arctic has been diminished incredibly.

Adam Levy: 20:22

Has it completely put a halt to collaborations with Russian scientists, as well as access to the region?

Matthew Druckenmiller: 22:09

So speaking on behalf of probably kind of the average US Arctic researcher, there is, in general, nothing that prohibits an individual a researcher from continuing collaboration with the Russian colleague.

But in practice, there are concerns regarding the safety of colleagues in Russia, because formal communication, even if it’s purely scientific, is putting those Russian researchers in risk. Because as I understand it, most Russian scientists have been directed to not collaborate with foreign scientists.

Are there informal channels that are being pursued to maintain relationships, to potentially even share data? I suspect they are existing. Most of the US researchers that I know who work in the Russian Arctic are ones that have been doing it for a very long time, over decades, building relationships.

And I suspect the vast majority of them have been entirely disrupted, their relationships with the Russian colleagues. But I’m guessing that there are some that have found ways to continue because of how longstanding their relationships have been, and the different informal channels that they use to, to share information.

Adam Levy: 23:28

Just how significant is this rift, then for the discipline of Arctic science?

Matthew Druckenmiller: 23:35

The war in Ukraine disrupts this in a way where the impact will prevent those long standing relationships from thriving from continuing.

And as an academic, as a researcher, you base your career and your decisions about what research to pursue, largely based on the partners that you’re actively able to work with.

And so when you’re unable to collaborate with, say, Russian scientists, you as a researcher need to shift focus towards building new relationships.

And that translates to different research rewards that may not be focused on the Russian Arctic.

And so there is this momentum that’s built in behind this disruption that orients researchers in other directions.

And so the disruption to relationships today, even though we’re still talking about this on the scale of a year, in terms of how long the war has been going on, the disruption will will last for a decade or more.

Adam Levy: 24:32

And how big will the disruption be simply because researchers can’t access the Russian Arctic in the way that they they used to be able to? How important is this data which may now be missing?

Matthew Druckenmiller: 24:44

As a member of the climate research community and someone who spends quite a bit of time and trying to understand broad changes across the Arctic, it’s really informative to look at case studies where changes are the most extreme.

Two examples of that are in the Russian Arctic. The Baltic Sea is a marine environment that’s warming much faster than other marine environments across the Arctic.

And so understanding how that warming affects different species in terms of biodiversity and species loss, species migration, the emergence of invasive species, all those require broad sampling that in part is in Russian territory.

Another example is wildfires. Most have probably seen in the news recently that wildfires are on the rise across the Arctic.

And in recent years, some of the most extreme wildfire seasons have been observed in the Siberian region of Russia.

And so understanding what drives those wildfire processes and the impact they have on the landscape requires collaboration with Russian scientists and merging their data with observations and the work being done, say in North America, where we also see wildfires on the rise.

Adam Levy: 26:01

Just on a personal level, how has this affected your own work your own collaborations, and has it completely severed ties for you, or some communication and some collaborations still ongoing?

Matthew Druckenmiller: 26:24

Well, in one direct way that is affected me as an individual scientist, I am a co-investigator on a project funded by the National Science Foundation's Navigating the new Arctic program that is focused on understanding the impact of increased rain during winter on Arctic systems, including Arctic communities.

And one of the best examples of of this impact is on how rain on snow affects reindeer husbandry. We had a large portion of our research centered on working with scholars and reindeer herders in the in the Yamal region of Russia. And so within that project, our collaboration with Russian scholars and with communities, reindeer herds in Russia has been entirely disrupted.

Adam Levy: 27:05

What are your hopes then for how the situation might develop in the future?

Matthew Druckenmiller: 27:10

Well, I think my hope, probably mirrors the hope of other scientists, that the war ends soon. And that is long standing relationships can begin to be repaired. And that new funding can be provided for resuming collaborative activities with Russian scientists.

And I would say I’ve had a growing frustration over the last year, just that the mere fact that we've had to have these conversations, that scientific freedom, peaceful cooperation between scientists, the independence of research, is connected to a war, especially as a global community as an Arctic community that we’re facing such extreme challenges with the pace of climate change.

It all boils down to the science being disrupted and the scientific freedom, the trust within the scientific community.

And the trust in the science that is not being biased by decisions that were tied to the war is something that will also take a while to move past.

Adam Levy: 28:17

That was Matthew Druckenmiller. And this has been our first episode of freedom and safety in science.

But what happens when research is disrupted not by armed conflict, but by conflict between politics and academia?

We'll be exploring such threats to research integrity in the United States in the next episode, And now our sponsored slot from the International Science Council, about how it’s exploring freedom, responsibility and safety in science. Thanks for listening, I’m Adam Levy.

International Science Council opening music

Anne Husebekk 28:58

Scientists must be allowed to challenge the established truths, and also to give new answers. But freedom must be balanced by responsibilities.

Robert French 29:09

Scientists today cannot just hunker down in the laboratory, oblivious to what’s going on in a non-scientific world. You can’t escape the context in which you’re exercising your freedom.

Marnie Chesterton 29:20

Human societies have always grappled with concepts of freedom and responsibility in their search for knowledge. But as societies evolve, so do their perspectives, and our world is changing more rapidly than ever. The past few decades have brought social and technological developments that have changed the way science is practiced and shared around the world, from social media to artificial intelligence. And while these have the potential to bring huge benefits to science, they also come with new responsibilities.

At the same time, we are living through unprecedented levels of mis- and disinformation, attacks and harassment against scientists are on the rise globally, and political tensions, conflicts and discrimination threaten scientific freedoms around the world. Trends and challenges like these highlight that our scientific freedom and responsibilities must constantly be revisited.

The International Science Council, the ISC, is committed to raising awareness and promoting thought around these issues. The ISC is the largest international non-governmental science organization of its kind, working globally to advance science and provide scientific expertise, advice and influence on major issues concerning science and society. In this podcast series, we’ll be exploring contemporary perspectives on the free and responsible practice of science in the early 21st century and the challenges science faces.

I’m Marnie Chesterton. In this first episode, what new threats does scientific freedom face today, and what responsibilities do scientists have to live up to?

The ISC’s vision is to advance science as a global public good.

Anne Husebekk 31:18

Science should be of benefit to all citizens of the world. Unfortunately, scientific knowledge is still not universally shared and accessible. This is what we mean with a vision of advance science as a global public good.

Marnie Chesterton 31:37

This is Anne Husebekk, Professor of Immunology at the Arctic University of Norway, and ISC Vice President for Freedom and Responsibility in Science.

Anne Husebekk 31:46

Science which is performed freely and responsibly provides immense value and benefits to society, whether it is in practical applications such as food production, in medicine and innovation of every kind, but also through expanding the understanding of nature, space and technologies. Understanding and knowledge involves all aspects of our modern lives and are also the answers to challenges in the modern world.

Marnie Chesterton 32:20

For this vision to become a reality, we must uphold one of the ISC’s key principles: freedom and responsibility in science. But what does that mean in practice?

Anne Husebekk 32:31

Scientists require four freedoms: freedoms of movement; of association; of expression; and communication. But freedom must be balanced by responsibilities. And scientists at all levels have a responsibility to carry out and communicate scientific work with integrity, respect, fairness, trustworthiness and transparency, but also recognize its benefits and possible harms.

Marnie Chesterton 33:03

Freedom and responsibility, then, are two sides of the same coin. In 2023, scientific freedoms face a complex array of external pressures, which means that responsibility in science is more important than ever.

Robert French 33:18

In recent times, we see increasing attacks on scientists for expressing truths which are inconvenient to government or vested interests, or people who are wedded to intractable anti-science belief systems.

Marnie Chesterton 33:32

Robert French is Chancellor of the University of Western Australia, and a member of the ISC’s Committee for Freedom and Responsibility in Science.

Robert French 33:41

Nature conducted a survey in 2021 of 300 scientists who had commented publicly about COVID-19 and 15% had received death threats. At the global level, we see the rise of authoritarian populism affecting scientific freedom. And usually you find that connected with the denigration of science and scientists, and you see that social media amplifies those views. We’re also seeing geopolitical tensions and conflict impacting on scientific freedom. And of course, at a broader level, governments are increasingly interested in the national security implications of collaborations and funding arrangements.

Marnie Chesterton 32:21

So, there are many fronts on which scientific freedom is under threat. By the same token, scientists working today also bear unique responsibilities like, for example, considering the risks and uncertainties of new technologies.

Robert French 34:37

Obvious examples are the growth of and development of artificial intelligence, and in the life sciences, heritable human genome editing using CRISPR technology. And that involves the alteration of a genetic material in a living person in a way that can be transmitted to that person’s descendants to prevent serious disease and when no reasonable alternative exists. But you’re bringing in criteria which are contestable and evaluative, and I think the debate has to be had and scientists have to participate in it. One further area of, I think, enhanced responsibility is teaching science and enhancing scientific literacy. Because where you have ignorance of science or scientific illiteracy, you have a space which is too readily filled by what I call the snake oil salesmen of anti-science.

Marnie Chesterton 31:31

Given these varied and complex challenges, how can we protect scientific freedoms and uphold scientific responsibilities in the 21st century? For its part, the ISC has developed four key principles to help shape our understanding of what science is and how it should be practiced today.

Robert French 35:51

Firstly, that science is a global public good. Secondly, that science belongs to everybody, that is, it’s part of the collective heritage of all humanity. Thirdly, that science is universal but also diverse. And importantly, there’s a recognition that ethnic, linguistic, cultural and gender diversity of research communities actually brings to bear understandings which can be vital to the development of scientific knowledge, different ways of looking at things. And the fourth principle is the pluralism and autonomy of scientific institutions.

Marnie Chesterton 36:25

The ISC principles should enable science to add maximum value and benefit to all of us; to be, in short, a global public good. But Robert says there is an important caveat.

Robert French 36:39

It’s important to bear in mind that the reciprocal relationship between science and society must not be translated into a requirement that all scientific research be demonstrated a priori to be capable of translation into concrete societal benefits. Basic science is the area of research in which the greatest advances have been made.

Marnie Chesterton 37:01

And there are cultural and geographical perspectives to consider here too.

Robert French 37:06

We have to accept that some of the perspectives reflected in my responses will not necessarily be shared in full measure in some parts of the world, and in some cases may be taken in some political systems to represent “Western values”. So the global engagement of science has to be sensitive, while maintaining fundamental principles.

Marnie Chesterton 37:27

The ISC is dedicated to ensuring freedom and responsibility through the work of its committee and in everything it does. And to give Anne Husebekk the final word, this is something that needs to be constantly reappraised.

Anne Husebekk 37:42

I think the awareness of freedom and responsibility in science can never be stopped. But in everything we do, we look to the global scientific community to listen and to learn about freedoms and responsibilities, to ensure that science has a place in society with a value and a value for everyone.

Marnie Chesterton 38:11

That’s it for this episode in the series on freedom and responsibility in science from the International Science Council. The ISC has released a discussion paper on these issues. You can find the paper and learn more about the ISC’s mission online at council.science/podcast. Next time, we’ll be looking at scientific autonomy. How do political interference, funding priorities and academic performance metrics infringe on scientific freedom, and at what point does autonomy compromise scientific responsibility?

https://council.science/podcast/