The Achilles’ Heel of Research
Freiburg, 25/06/2026
Prior to the panel discussion about striking a balance between the need for protection and sociopolitical responsibility in science, we interviewed Professor Dr Sylvia Paletschek, historian and Vice Rector for University Culture, and Professor Dr Dr h.c. mult. Andreas Voßkuhle, legal scholar and former President of Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court. The panel discussion takes place in Kollegiengebäude I on Tuesday, 30th June 2026, from 7 pm.
Scientific freedom is guaranteed under the Basic Law, and this should protect research and teaching against political or ideological influence. But how much does science need protection today?
Paletschek: Science very much needs protection. If it were to be influenced by politics, ideology or religion, free debate would be at risk. At the same time, it is a long-term endeavour. It takes peace, time and resources for scientific knowledge to be produced. And scientists also need protection. The concept of scientific freedom existed before the Basic Law, being incorporated for the first time in the Frankfurt Constitution of 1849. Although this constitution was never put into practice, the scientific freedom it outlined became a model for later constitutions.
Voßkuhle: We’ve established very strong protection for scientific freedom in the constitution; it is absolutely guaranteed in Article 5 paragraph 3 of the Basic Law. Very few constitutions do this. Scientific freedom can only be limited if it conflicts with other constitutional values. So there must be a very strong reason for limiting it. All the same, science as such is under greater pressure these days.
Do you have specific examples of this?
Voßkuhle: In future, the risk to science – as we can see in the USA among other places – will come from cutting funding. If there’s no more money for lots of things, the higher education landscape will change. The Trump administration is influencing research subjects this way. They want to prevent the continuation of research into what is called ‘woke’ content – for example issues of identity, power structures or social injustice – and stop it dealing with subjects that are not attractive from the point of view of the US government, such as the genocide of the original inhabitants of the USA or the history of slavery. I expect that the AfD – if they came to power politically – would also attempt to influence what is researched at universities.
“The AfD would probably withdraw funding from research that they regard as problematic. Funding is the Achilles’ heel of science.”
Prof. Dr Dr h.c. mult. Andreas Voßkuhle
Legal scholar and former President of Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court
How could science be harmed despite the protection of scientific freedom in basic law?
Voßkuhle: My forecast is that the influence of the AfD would not come from obviously unconstitutional laws but from money. The AfD would probably withdraw funding from research that they regard as problematic. Funding is the Achilles’ heel of science. It is conceivable that a federal state government would say that they no longer need a Chair of Gender and Diversity, and cut funding for it. Or: there should be more research into German national history, but at the same time not into global history. Federal state governments can do this because higher education policy falls within the responsibility of the federal states. I think two legislative periods would be enough for the AfD to do lasting harm to universities.
Where do each of you think the freedom of researchers ends?
Paletschek: The freedom of research and researchers has its limits set in the Basic Law and must be exercised within this framework. That is also what the section on scientific freedom states.
Voßkuhle: Human dignity is set in stone. Otherwise, there isn’t a clear red line but only contradictory positions, which have to be resolved by applying “practical concordance”. One example of this is the subject of animal experiments, because the protection of animals is also anchored in the Basic Law. Cases like this have to be weighed up and reasonable solutions found.
“What you can and must do is to reflect on what type of knowledge it is, what you can do with it and what responsibility this knowledge brings with it.”
Prof. Dr Sylvia Paletschek
Historian and Vice Rector for University Culture
Many research results today can be dual use, that is, they can be used for civil or for military purposes. Should researchers withhold the knowledge they have gained for ethical reasons?
Voßkuhle: That’s conceivable, but the real problem starts before that, that is, with the question: is this form of research allowed at the university? We see now, specifically in the war in Ukraine, that things we are researching could also be relevant for military purposes. This ranges from the use of Artificial Intelligence through the application of specific materials to technical equipment with which we can build drones, for example.
Paletschek: You often don’t know in advance what specific technologies, inventions or even the knowledge you gather can be used for. And you can never rule out misuse from the start. What you can and must do is to reflect on what type of knowledge it is, what you can do with it and what responsibility this knowledge brings with it.
What do you see as the fundamental duty of universities faced with these conflicting interests of science, politics and society?
Voßkuhle: Conflicting interests also include aspects discussed using the terms “post-truth” and “reliable knowledge”. The question is whether there is such a thing as facts or whether we are living in times when each individual has their own truth. This discussion is also about the future of universities, because if scientific knowledge no longer has this special status, then politics wonders: Why should we hand out a lot of money there if we don’t really need it?
Paletschek: As a university, we have a very important role in conveying education and knowledge, in research and in transferring expert knowledge to society. So part of our job is to communicate why we need expert knowledge to society. It’s also important to make it clear that scientific results can always be revised, as they are always only ever a relative approximation to something like ‘absolute’ facts.
“As universities, we must endeavour to create up-to-date conditions of work and career, attuned to changing needs, particularly those of the younger generation.”
Prof. Dr Sylvia Paletschek
Historian and Vice Rector for University Cultureylvia Paletschek
For most researchers, great intrinsic motivation is indispensable. But if science is now increasingly under pressure, what does this mean for the future of careers as a ‘scientist’?
Voßkuhle: The profession must remain attractive. That’s not easy in the circumstances we have at the moment. Many additional activities – for example continuously attracting research funding and developing international networks – have to be carried out. We can see this in other professions too: intrinsic motivation is there, but it isn’t infinite. If you don’t receive a lot of money or social recognition, then there have to be other advantages. For example, that you are freer to plan everyday activities than in other jobs. For many people who take up research, this is a massive privilege which motivates them to strive harder and pursue a scientific career.
Paletschek: I think this intrinsic motivation is indispensable, both for research and for teaching. Attractive career paths and conditions are also important in order to be able to maintain this motivation. As universities, we must endeavour to create up-to-date conditions of work and career, attuned to changing needs, particularly those of the younger generation.
“Democracy thrives on transparent discussions about the structure of society. And we always need knowledge for this. Much of this knowledge is produced at universities and is essential if we, as democrats, are to participate effectively in democratic processes.”
Prof. Dr Dr h.c. mult. Andreas Voßkuhle
Legal scholar and former President of Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court
Looking further afield, it appears that not just science but also democracy are coming under pressure in many countries. Do you believe there is a connection?
Voßkuhle: Democracy thrives on transparent discussions about the structure of society. And we always need knowledge for this. Much of this knowledge is produced at universities and is essential if we, as democrats, are to participate effectively in democratic processes.
Prof. Dr Sylvia Paletschek
Professor Dr Sylvia Paletschek is Professor of 19th and 20th Century History at the University of Freiburg’s Department of History. Since 2021 she has also held the post of Vice Rector for University Culture. Her research focuses on women’s and gender history, the history of universities and science, and historical culture.
Prof. Dr Dr h.c. mult. Andreas Voßkuhle
Professor Dr Dr h.c. mult. Andreas Voßkuhle is Professor of Public Law in the Institute for Political Science and Philosophy of Law at the University of Freiburg. Key areas of his research include constitutional law, state and legal theory. From May 2008 to June 2020 he was a judge on the Federal Constitutional Court, initially as Vice-President, until March 2010 when he took over as President.