![\"Protests](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/649920880_highres.jpg\")
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
In February 2025, researchers from universities and the National Institutes of Health protested in Washington D.C. against massive budget cuts. <\/p>\n
John McDonnell \/ Keystone <\/p>\n
In Switzerland, science enjoys greater public trust than the police, government or parliament. But what exactly is the role of science in a democracy, and how does it differ in dictatorships?\n<\/p>\n
This content was published on <\/p>\n
September 8, 2026 – 09:00\n<\/p>\n
For many years, the police were the institution that the Swiss population trusted most. This emerges from the yearly Security Study by the federal technology institute ETH ZurichExternal link<\/a>. Today, however, another body comes out on top: science.<\/p>\n For Naomi Oreskes, a science historian at Harvard University, this is good news. It shows that the Swiss public values \u201chigh-quality information\u201d more than its counterpart in the United States.<\/p>\n The Security Study has been examining levels of trust in science since 2018External link<\/a>. At the time, it justified the introduction of the category based on trends seen \u201cparticularly in the United States\u201d.<\/p>\n \u2018Follow the Science\u2019<\/p>\n In countries such as Switzerland, the Covid-19 pandemic propelled debate about the role of science in society into the political limelight.<\/p>\n According to political scientist Eri Bertsou, the rhetoric at the start of the pandemic set off her \u201cpersonal alarm bells\u201d. Her research at the University of St Gallen focuses, among things, on technocracy \u2013 that is, the idea that political decisions should be based more heavily on expert knowledge.<\/p>\n In spring 2020, then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson justified government decisions with the slogan \u201cFollow the Science\u201d. \u201cI remember thinking: gosh, this isn\u2019t good,\u201d says Bertsou. It was the use of the definite article, \u201cthe\u201d, rather than the actual policy choice that she was reacting to. \u201cThe science, as if there were one settled answer to follow. There wasn\u2019t one at the time.\u201d Data was constantly coming in, and assumptions were being rethought. <\/p>\n \u201cScientific assessments and models changed accordingly over the course of the pandemic.\u201d says Bertsou. When governments then modified their pandemic policies, science was blamed. \u201cPrecisely because governments had claimed to be following it.\u201d<\/p>\n The idea that science can provide clear-cut answers to politically complex questions sounds tempting. But the role of science, Bertsou says, is to contribute its findings as a basis for democratic debate: \u201cThe decision must lie with those who have to live with the outcomes.\u201d<\/p>\n Boris Johnson, who was British Prime Minister at the time, addressed the public every day at the start of the pandemic. Pictured here on Sunday, 22 March 2020. <\/p>\n Ian Vogler \/ Keystone <\/p>\n However, the \u201cFollow the Science\u201d slogan conveyed the message that political decisions could derive directly from scientific findings. \u201cIn so doing, the boundary between scientific advice and political responsibility blurred,\u201d Bertsou explains.<\/p>\n She has noted a strong polarisation of public attitudes towards science in many places. These attitudes are \u201ccontext-specific\u201d. Thus, in Eastern Europe after the end of the Cold War, it was mainly people on the political left who were sceptical of science. Today, attitudes there have aligned more closely with Western Europe where, as in the United States, right-wingers tend to be more sceptical. The same holds true for Switzerland, where the Security Study shows that trust decreases \u201cthe further to the right one moves on the political spectrum\u201d.<\/p>\n Bertsou is not surprised to see such high trust in science among the Swiss population as a whole. \u201cMy guess is that in a world full of uncertainties, there is an additional need to have something to guide one.\u201d Data from a study across 68 countriesExternal link<\/a>, in which Bertsou was involved, show that many people want scientists to be more active in politics.<\/p>\n Trust is often regarded as a vanishing commodity. In recent years, dwindling public confidence in institutions in many countries has given rise to growing concern.<\/p>\n >>Trust in politics and the authorities is also comparatively high in Switzerland. Read our latest article on the subject here:<\/p>\n \n More<\/p>\n More <\/p>\n Swiss democracy\n <\/p>\n High Swiss trust in government sparks little interest abroad <\/p>\n This content was published on <\/p>\n Jul 15, 2026 <\/p>\n In most countries, only a minority of people feel their government listens to them. Switzerland is the exception. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Read more: High Swiss trust in government sparks little interest abroad Yet Bertsou says that trust does not disappear \u2013 it merely shifts, just like in the law of conservation of energy: \u201cTrust is relative; you have to direct it somewhere.\u201d Those who lose trust in politics may place it in a populist figure \u2013 or in science. If politics is perceived as corrupt, some people pin their hopes on experts whom they see as being outside the system.<\/p>\n Technocracy \u2013 or the call to \u201cfollow the science\u201d \u2013 can capitalise on the promise that there is an objectively correct, scientifically justifiable policy.<\/p>\n When science serves the authoritarian state<\/p>\n In dictatorships, there is no critical tension between science and government, says political scientist Ralph Weber, who conducts research on China at the University of Basel. \u201cOn the contrary. In China, science is supposed to help the Party exercise its rule.\u201d It is no coincidence, he adds, that authoritarian governments often have a technocratic understanding of science: the notion of a \u201cbest solution\u201d is closely linked to autocratic rule.<\/p>\n This may sometimes be efficient. However, open discussion is precisely one of the strengths of science in democracies. \u201cWe can debate what the problem actually is. Authoritarian states bypass this. The regimes decide and the problem is laid down from above,\u201d says Weber.<\/p>\n During his research and advisory work with a \u201cwide variety of members of the scientific community\u201d, Weber is often confronted with the question of who scientists should cooperate with and how. Modern science operates as an interconnected global network, but science has a different function and self-image in authoritarian states \u2013 and this poses challenges for democratic countries such as Switzerland.<\/p>\n \n More<\/p>\n More <\/p>\n Swiss democracy\n <\/p>\n Our democracy newsletter <\/p>\n If you are a fan of democracy, then you\u2019ve come to the right place. We report on the latest democratic developments, debates and challenges. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Read more: Our democracy newsletter On the one hand, it\u2019s all about \u201ckeeping ahead in the global competition for knowledge and innovation\u201d, says Weber. At the same time, though, it is vital to avoid inadvertently contributing to a further weakening democracy in the long term.<\/p>\n For Weber, this means staying open without being na\u00efve. What is needed is investment in \u201cfully informed scientific cooperation\u201d. Exchange, research and cooperation should be facilitated. But \u201cif someone is conducting research into hydraulics with China, they should be able to gauge what the lack of distinction between civilian and military research means for the project.\u201d No one should be completely taken aback afterwards to discover that their findings have contributed to the construction of long-range missiles.<\/p>\n When Weber talks about challenges in cooperation, he is no longer thinking solely of authoritarian states such as China \u2013 but rather, globally, of democracies that \u201cface many internal authoritarian challenges\u201d, such as India and the United States. The proportion of democracies worldwide has decreased in recent decades.<\/p>\n Like many others, Weber is currently concerned about the situation in the United States. \u201cWe are witnessing first-hand how a traditionally strong scientific partner is changing.\u201d<\/p>\n >>When is a democracy no longer a democracy? Read our article on this issue:<\/p>\n \n More<\/p>\n More <\/p>\n When is a democracy no longer a democracy? <\/p>\n This content was published on <\/p>\n Apr 16, 2026 <\/p>\n Beyond Switzerland\u2019s borders, democracy is under pressure. But with gradual decay as much the cause as violent coups, it\u2019s not always clear when, or if, it really \u201cends\u201d. <\/p>\n![\"Boris](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/413415523_highres.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"Federal](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/717095970_highres.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n <\/a><\/p>\n![\"Newsletter](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/1788855435_470_newsletter_teaser_cc_democracy.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n <\/a><\/p>\n![\"protestor](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/707193040_highres.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/714020705_highres.jpg\")
<\/p>\n