logo
Academic freedom under siege

Academic freedom under siege

The Sun01-07-2025
HUMANS are an incredible species, having achieved extraordinary feats, especially in the past century. We reached space just six decades after the first powered flight. Today's smartphone has thousands of times more computational power than the machine that sent a man to the moon.
With techniques dating back to the 10th century, we eventually eradicated smallpox. Measles vaccination accounts for 60% of lives saved and over the past 50 years, vaccines for 14 diseases have cut infant deaths by 40% globally and over 50% in Africa.
To this day, vaccination remains the only effective treatment for rabies, which has a 100% fatality rate in the unvaccinated.
This progress stems from scientific and technological advancement, made possible by nations setting aside differences to pursue knowledge together.
Yet, the very system behind these breakthroughs – academic freedom backed by sustained funding – is now under siege. From US funding cuts to structural constraints in Malaysia, science faces mounting political and institutional pressures.
Under President Donald Trump, research funding was slashed at will – putting the global scientific community at risk and reversing years of progress.
The Harvard Gazette (2025) interviewed researchers affected by the funding freeze. Some warned their work would vanish entirely without continued support, including studies on tuberculosis immunity and gut neuron ageing, with implications for neurological diseases. This affects not only research progress but also the people involved, especially emerging talents.
Although the cuts mainly affect US-based universities, the impact is global. US institutions anchor countless international research efforts, especially in climate science, global health and advanced technologies. Curtailing their work may delay progress and fragment the global knowledge ecosystem.
These cuts, including the US$400 million (RM1.69 billion) withdrawn from Columbia University, aim to punish institutions for their diversity, equity and inclusion programmes and positions on Palestine, where ceasefire calls are framed as support for terrorism and labelled as anti-Semitic.
This politically charged culture war, driven by conservatives hostile to science that challenges their worldview, is undermining research that could benefit humanity. And when academic freedom erodes, society will pay the price.
Instead of fostering an inclusive, knowledge-based future, the Trump administration is pulling funding from research on climate change, equitable society and women in society. This ideological censorship threatens entire fields, with women's health being just one stark example of the consequences.
Because women were long excluded from clinical trials, critical conditions such as heart attacks are often presented differently and go unrecognised, even by trained doctors. Pregnant women remain excluded from many studies today, leaving gaps in treatment safety and efficacy.
Without inclusive, well-funded and politically independent research, these blind spots will persist, with serious consequences for public health.
Can the global research community fill the vacuum left by what was once the world's leading funder? The challenge highlights just how deeply global science has relied on US institutions and why countries like Malaysia must now accelerate efforts to build their own research capabilities: financially, structurally and in terms of talent.
This includes tackling brain drain. As highlighted by Emir Research, misalignment between higher education, industry demand and research incentives have driven skilled Malaysians abroad, weakening our innovation ecosystem just as global research and development (R&D) leadership shifts.
Emir Research has previously noted that shifting global push-and-pull dynamics are prompting Chinese nationals to return home. While US hostility towards certain sciences has played a role, equally important are China's rising R&D investments and reforms aimed at attracting and retaining talent.
While the US rolls back funding for climate and green energy research, China is accelerating – most notably with the world's first operational thorium-based nuclear reactor, offering more abundant fuel and lower proliferation risks. Despite concerns over human rights and transparency, China's sustained R&D drive stands in stark contrast to recent US trends.
Meanwhile, the European Union has allocated €500 million to draw global scientific talent – signalling a broader recalibration of research leadership.
In this fluid and opportune moment, Malaysia must not be left behind. This recalibration is about more than funding or geography; it is about values, structures and priorities. To stay competitive, we must urgently recalibrate our ecosystem.
This demands stronger government commitment and a serious rethink of how academic institutions are governed and how academic freedom is upheld. Yet, it is never simple.
According to Da (2022), 'academic freedom' is among the most misunderstood concepts in academia. And in Malaysia, it has clearly been curtailed.
On the surface, Malaysian public universities have gained more autonomy compared to before, with our top university – Universiti Malaya – aiming to further reduce government reliance and become fully independent in governance, admissions, finance and academics.
While this addresses part of the equation, academic freedom involves far more. Da systematically identified three key impediments to academic freedom: the Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act (Act 605), weak institutional autonomy and external interference.
UM's efforts focus on institutional autonomy, which is commendable but not enough. The government must do more to ensure academic staff have the support and freedom needed to achieve meaningful outcomes.
Instead of restricting discourse through cautious regulation or indirect pressure, the government and universities should foster open and critical engagement. This will uphold academic freedom and nurture the analytical mindset essential for innovation and nation-building.
The best way to cultivate future research talents is to let students question, think and discuss – not reduce them to passive memorisation in lecture halls. However, academic freedom alone is not enough. Without a system that turns investment into real-world results, research risks becoming a numbers game.
This is why Emir Research has long advocated institutionalising the input-output-outcome-impact framework across Malaysia's R&D and policy ecosystem to ensure funding and talent lead to measurable innovation and societal impact.
Research strategy must go beyond volume metrics and track commercialisation, policy relevance and public value.
In October 2025, the Science, Technology and Innovation Ministry projected Malaysia's gross domestic expenditure on R&D to reach 2.5% in 2025 and 3.5% by 2030.
Yet, Govindaraju et al (2020) found that while additional funding boosts publications and patents, overall efficiency remains weak due to poor innovation and value creation.
Non-research universities often chase revenue, whereas research universities focus on low-hanging fruits to justify funding and meet performance metrics.
This may help explain why Malaysia ranks among the top countries for academic paper retractions, suggesting that institutional pressure to publish – regardless of quality – could be distorting academic priorities.
Academic integrity aside, these inefficiencies raise a fundamental issue: if Malaysia aims to join the ranks of innovation-driven nations, our research must serve society, not just institutional metrics.
Crucially, a world-class research system cannot stand on a weak educational base. As stressed by Emir Research, any serious innovation agenda requires overhauling how we teach, assess and prepare future researchers.
The system must equip students with not just technical skills but also critical thinking, multilingual fluency and interdisciplinary agility – the foundations of innovation in the 21st century.
We cannot repeat the mistakes that triggered this global shift – cuts to funding, attacks on scientific integrity and the erosion of academic freedom. Nor can we continue business as usual amid shifting global dynamics.
To thrive in this new landscape, Malaysia must recalibrate urgently and deliberately. We need a research system grounded in freedom, impact and structural integrity. This is not just a scientific imperative; it is a national one.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US Senate committee backs $1 billion for Ukraine in Pentagon spending bill
US Senate committee backs $1 billion for Ukraine in Pentagon spending bill

The Star

time2 hours ago

  • The Star

US Senate committee backs $1 billion for Ukraine in Pentagon spending bill

U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) attends a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on U.S. President Donald Trump's budget request for the Department of Defense, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 11, 2025. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz/File Photo WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A powerful U.S. Senate committee approved a military spending bill on Thursday that includes about $1 billion to support Ukraine, despite President Donald Trump's administration having asked Congress to eliminate such funding in its budget request. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved $852 billion for the Department of Defense in the fiscal year ending on Sept. 30, 2026, which is $21.7 billion, or 2.6%, more than the Republican president requested earlier this year. The committee voted 26-3 to send the spending measure for a vote in the full Senate, with strong support from both Democrats and Trump's fellow Republicans. "Not only the prior administration, but this administration as well, have underestimated the level of challenge that we have," said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who chairs the panel's defense subcommittee. The bill includes $800 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), and $225 million for the Baltic Security Initiative, much of which ends up supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia's invasion. "I would say support for Ukraine is a billion dollars," Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, the defense spending subcommittee's top Democrat, told reporters ahead of the Appropriations Committee meeting. Trump's budget request, and the defense appropriations bill passed by the House of Representatives earlier this year, did not include any funding for the USAI, which funds security intelligence, training, equipment and supplies for Ukraine. However, many Republicans in Congress, particularly in the Senate, backed support for Ukraine even before Russia launched its full-scale invasion in early 2022. And Trump himself recently has grown more frustrated with Moscow's refusal to agree to a ceasefire. He has recently announced deadlines for Russia to show progress toward ending the war or face new sanctions - despite in the past speaking about having a good relationship with Putin. Both McConnell and Coons stressed that the U.S. is learning from Ukraine while supporting its military. "Shutting off engagement with Ukraine would undermine our military's efforts to prepare for the modern battlefield," McConnell said during the committee meeting. The war in Ukraine has evolved into the most-drone intensive conflict ever, and the use of drone technology has helped Ukraine to deal with Russia's advantages in troop numbers, artillery and tanks. To become law, the appropriations bill must pass the full Senate and then be reconciled with the House of Representatives bill, which adhered to the Trump administration's $831.5 billion Pentagon spending request and did not include Ukraine aid. After that, it would be sent to the White House for Trump to sign into law or veto. (Reporting by Patricia ZengerleEditing by Frances Kerry)

Trump's MAGA base defies conservative pro-Israel doctrine
Trump's MAGA base defies conservative pro-Israel doctrine

New Straits Times

time3 hours ago

  • New Straits Times

Trump's MAGA base defies conservative pro-Israel doctrine

UNCONDITIONAL support for Israel has long been an entry requirement in US Republican politics, but that orthodoxy is being challenged by Donald Trump's populist base — where invocations of the "special relationship" are falling on deaf ears. Images of starvation and suffering in Gaza have given new impetus to a debate that has been simmering in Trump's "MAGA" movement over whether US involvement in the Middle East is consistent with the president's "America First" platform. Trump's first significant break with Israel came on Monday, when he acknowledged that "real starvation" is happening in Gaza and vowed to set up food centres in the besieged enclave, which has been devastated by Israel's war with Hamas. Asked if he agreed with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's denials of the Gaza hunger crisis, Trump said: "Based on television, I would say not particularly, because those children look very hungry." It was a notable retort and prompted commentators to speculate that unwavering US support for Israel might end up as just another conservative sacred cow slayed by MAGA. Vice-President J.D. Vance went further at an event in Ohio, discussing "heartbreaking" images of "little kids who are clearly starving to death" and demanding that Israel let in more aid. Political scientist and former US diplomat Michael Montgomery thinks the tonal shift might in part be emotional — with TV images of starving children resonating more profoundly than the aftermath of air strikes. "Perhaps it is because no civilised people see starvation as a legitimate weapon of war," the University of Michigan-Dearborn professor said. Israel has always enjoyed broad bipartisan support in Congress but the rise of the isolationist MAGA movement under Trump has challenged the ideological foundations of the "special relationship." MAGA realpolitik seeks to limit US involvement in foreign wars to those that directly impact its interests, and in particular the "left behind" working class that makes up Trump's base. Pro-Trump think tank The Heritage Foundation in March called on Washington to "re-orient its relationship with Israel" from a special relationship "to an equal strategic partnership". Stronger expressions of disapproval have been subdued by a sense that they are a betrayal of Republican thinking, according to some analysts, especially after the Oct 7 Hamas attacks. But there is a new urgency in the debate in MAGA circles following dire warnings from leading NGOs and the UN World Food Programme's finding that a third of Gaza's population — of about two million — go for days without eating. One sign of the new thinking came in an X post from far-right firebrand congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has pushed to cancel US$500 million in funding for Israel's rocket defence system. Greene this week went further than any Republican lawmaker has previously in using the word "genocide" to describe Israel's conduct and slamming the "starvation of innocent people and children in Gaza". While Greene's credibility has been undermined by an extensive record of conspiratorial social media posts, there is no denying that she knows what makes the MAGA crowd tick. A new CNN poll found the share of Republicans who believe Israel's actions have been fully justified has dropped from 68 per cent in 2023 to 52 per cent. Youth seems to be the driver, according to a Pew Research poll from April, when food shortages had yet to become a humanitarian catastrophe. While Republicans over age 50 haven't changed much in their pro-Israel outlook since 2022, the survey showed that the US ally's unfavourability among younger adults has climbed from 35 per cent to 50 per cent. "It seems that for the under-30-year-old MAGA base, Israel has almost no support," former White House strategist Steve Bannon told Politico, adding that Trump's rebuke would solidify his supporters' enmity. Democratic strategist Mike Nellis described the Gaza food emergency as "one of those rare moments where the crisis has broken through the usual partisan gridlock". "You're seeing people across the political spectrum who just can't stomach it anymore," he said.

Lula's approval rises amid tariff dispute with Trump, poll shows
Lula's approval rises amid tariff dispute with Trump, poll shows

The Star

time4 hours ago

  • The Star

Lula's approval rises amid tariff dispute with Trump, poll shows

Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva attends a ceremony at the Planalto Palace, in Brasilia, Brazil, July 30, 2025. REUTERS/Adriano Machado/File Photo SAO PAULO (Reuters) -Approval for Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva exceeded disapproval for the first time in nine months, a poll showed on Thursday, against a backdrop of a growing dispute with Washington. Earlier in July, U.S. President Donald Trump said he would slap 50% tariffs on Brazilian exports to fight what he has called a "witch hunt" against Lula's right-wing rival, former President Jair Bolsonaro. Those tariffs were formalized on Thursday, albeit with some key sector exemptions. The Trump administration has also imposed sanctions and visa restrictions on the judge overseeing Bolsonaro's trial on charges of plotting a coup. Lula's government has pushed back, calling Trump an unwanted "emperor" and the sanctions "unacceptable." The AtlasIntel/Bloomberg poll showed 50.2% approval of Lula's performance, up from 49.7% in the previous poll two weeks ago and marking the first time he has scored greater approval than disapproval since October. The new poll adds to evidence that Trump's tactics may be backfiring in Brazil, rallying public support behind a defiant leftist government. The proportion of respondents who consider Lula's government good or great has also improved, now at 46.6% from 43.4%, although that is still below the 48.2% who consider it bad or awful. If a replay of the 2022 presidential election in Brazil was held this week, 47.8% of those surveyed would vote for Lula and 44.2% for Bolsonaro. Despite being barred from holding public office until 2030, Bolsonaro insists he could run again, while Lula has hinted that he could run for reelection. The poll surveyed 7,334 Brazilian adults online between July 25 and July 28. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus one percentage point. (Reporting by Isabel Teles in Sao Paulo, editing by Manuela Andreoni and Rosalba O'Brien)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store