Mari‑Liis Jakobson: Society needs freedom in academic research

Mari‑Liis Jakobson: Society needs freedom in academic research Society needs institutions where uncomfortable questions can be asked without fear that, even before research begins, the politically or morally "correct" answer has already been predetermined. Just as society needs a free press, it also needs free scientific inquiry, writes Mari‑Liis Jakobson. The start of the academic year is approaching. Within a week, researchers, lecturers and students will return to academia to create, teach and acquire new knowledge. In this context, and prompted by a discussion at the Opinion Festival about whether scholars have become potential targets of opinion‑driven hostility, I have spent much of this summer thinking about the meaning of academic freedom. The modern idea of academic freedom reaches back at least to the 19th‑century German university tradition. The central idea of the Humboldtian university was that academia's task is to pursue knowledge, and that this pursuit should not be interfered with by external interests — not those of political leaders, university administrators, funders, political movements or other interest groups. The principle rests on a simple logic: the best knowledge emerges when a researcher is free to ask the questions their expertise deems important and to follow the evidence wherever it leads. But in this early conception, academic freedom applied mainly within academia itself — simplified, new knowledge was pursued in an ivory tower separate from the rest of the world. Later, the same principle was formulated more broadly. For example, the 1940 statement of the American Association of University Professors declared that this freedom must apply to research, teaching and also the public sphere. A researcher must have the freedom to investigate and publish on any topic, provided they follow scientific standards, strict ethical requirements, methodological norms and interpret results as accurately as possible. A lecturer has the freedom to design their own courses, while ensuring they do not introduce unrelated or controversial content. The statement also affirmed that, like all citizens, scholars have freedom of speech. But it urged scholars to remember that belonging to the academic community carries an additional responsibility: to be measured, to respect others' views and to make clear when they speak for themselves and when for their institution. It is important to ensure that one's public statements do not harm the reputation of one's discipline or university — a responsibility that has become increasingly difficult as public discussion moves in cycles driven by scandal‑based attention economics. In recent years, restrictions on academic freedom have become a growing problem not only in clearly authoritarian states but also in countries with long democratic traditions, where disputes have intensified over what may be researched, taught or said publicly. Scholars have faced attacks or lost jobs because of their research or statements, and teaching and research have been steered away from the pursuit of best knowledge by non‑academic agendas. This issue has become more visible in Estonia as well. The Opinion Festival discussion highlighted several reasons and negative experiences that make scholars reluctant to speak publicly. In Estonia, the main fear does not seem to be losing one's job because of research results or convictions. Rather, scholars fear public attacks, political labeling, media attention or situations where their competence is judged not by their work but by a single statement. If a scholar begins to ask before speaking publicly not only "Is this claim well‑founded?" but also "What will happen to me if I say this?", society may lose knowledge it actually needs to hear. Academic freedom benefits all of us. Certainly students: it gives them the right to ask, doubt and argue. A student need not be an uncritical follower of their lecturer. A university's task is not to teach a person what to believe, but to help them learn where scientific knowledge comes from and how to evaluate it — how to distinguish moral and political convictions from scientific knowledge. One is not superior to the other; they simply serve different functions. Finally, academic freedom matters to the wider public. Society needs institutions where uncomfortable questions can be asked without fear that the answer has been politically or morally predetermined. Just as society needs a free press, it also needs free scientific inquiry.. One of the most important virtues of academic thinking is the willingness to admit that our current knowledge may be the best we have now, but it may not be final. New and better information may lead to new and more accurate understanding. This does not mean that all social or political questions can be solved by scientific method. But scientific thinking offers valuable habits: the willingness to justify one's positions, to distinguish knowledge from opinion, and to change one's convictions when better evidence emerges. So, with the new academic year approaching, I wish researchers, lecturers, students — and really everyone — good academic freedom and responsibility. Let us keep scientific knowledge visible and audible, not confined to an ivory tower. -- Editor: Kaupo Meiel, Argo Ideon