For the second year, the Stand Up for Science movement has returned in spring. Originating in the United States and taken up in many countries, including France, it is a symptom of deep concern: the relegation, contestation, instrumentalization, and sometimes disqualification of scientific discourse in the public sphere. We are experiencing a paradoxical moment. Science has never been more present in our lives – from health crises to climate issues, technological innovations to public policies – and yet, it has never been so attacked and undermined in its social legitimacy.
In contrast to other movements of researchers and academics, Stand Up for Science is not just a demand for resources, even if that is real and vital. It is an alarm bell to society. An alert on how our political, media, and economic elites treat knowledge and complexity. Science is not a fixed truth. It is a process, a method, an elaboration made of hypotheses, contradictions, and reassessments. And it is precisely this that is being attacked by Trump and his ilk. What is at stake is the ability for science to describe reality – present or past – in an independent manner.
Those who stand up for science defend this very possibility: the existence of a science that is not entirely subordinate to political justification or economic interest. The possibility of knowledge that retains its autonomy of production and its ability to challenge common ideas and preconceived notions. The Stand Up for Science movement raises an essential question: what place do we want to give to knowledge and complexity in our societies?
In fact, it is not simply about “defending science.” As Olivier Berné, astrophysicist and co-host of the Stand Up for Science France collective, says, it is about “defending our collective ability to describe reality and debate based on facts.” Hence, it is about defending the essential conditions for clear and contradictory public debate, and therefore, democracy.
[Context: The Stand Up for Science movement is a global initiative aimed at defending the autonomy and credibility of scientific research in the face of increasing attacks and skepticism. It emphasizes the importance of evidence-based decision-making and public engagement with scientific issues.]
[Fact Check: The movement has roots in concerns about the politicization of science and the dissemination of misinformation, particularly evident during the Trump administration.]
