EUPHA joins colleagues across the global health and scientific communities in responding to Nancy Krieger’s call in The Lancet to oppose proposed changes to US federal research funding and governance.
We are deeply concerned about proposals that would transfer decision-making authority for federally funded research from independent peer review to political appointees, restrict areas of inquiry, allow termination of grants on ideological grounds, and limit international collaboration and the dissemination of findings. These measures represent not merely administrative reform but a fundamental challenge to the principles that underpin scientific integrity: independence, transparency, openness to debate, and the freedom to pursue evidence wherever it leads.
EUPHA members have long worked in partnership with US researchers, agencies, and institutions. The United States remains a central pillar of the global research ecosystem. When its research governance is weakened, the effects extend far beyond national borders, disrupting collaboration, distorting research agendas, and undermining public trust in science worldwide.
Experience shows that the erosion of scientific independence rarely occurs through a single dramatic act. Rather, it proceeds through incremental shifts: redefining standards of “rigour,” relocating authority from independent experts to political actors, and encouraging institutions to remain silent in the face of encroachment. History and contemporary experience alike demonstrate that when institutions accommodate such pressures, whether out of fear, opportunism, or a misguided desire for neutrality, they risk becoming complicit in the weakening of the very systems on which public health depends.
The consequences for health are profound. Public health relies on the ability to generate, assess, and apply evidence without political interference. When research on health inequalities, environmental risks, vaccines, or social determinants is constrained, the communities most at risk are rendered invisible, and policy becomes detached from reality.
EUPHA therefore affirms the following principles:
- Scientific independence must be protected from political control, including in funding decisions and peer review.
- Freedom of inquiry must extend to all topics relevant to population health, including those that may challenge prevailing political priorities.
- Open collaboration across borders is essential to address global health challenges and must not be curtailed.
- Institutional solidarity is required when these principles are threatened.
We recognise that many US institutions, researchers, and civil society organisations are already working to defend these values, often at considerable cost. Their actions remind us that institutions are not passive structures but active agents, capable of either resisting or enabling the erosion of democratic and scientific norms. At this moment, silence is not neutrality. Failing to speak out in defence of scientific independence risks normalising its erosion.
EUPHA once again stands in solidarity with colleagues in the United States and around the world in opposing these proposed changes. We join Nancy Krieger in encouraging members of the international scientific and public health community to engage, respond, and defend the principles that make science and the protection of population health possible. The integrity of science is a global public good. It must be actively defended.
