The past eight decades have often been described as a golden age of scientific discovery. Nations in the Western world, led by the United States, funded transformational research across virtually all disciplines, and ecology and evolution shared fully in the breakthroughs. Theoretical, observational, experimental, and analytical approaches were combined to deepen understanding of organismal function, variation, and interactions with the environment. Crucially, these advances went beyond academic inquiry. They informed environmental policy and conservation efforts, helping manage species and ecosystems in the face of global change. Murray notes that this arrangement rested on a social contract: governments allocated public funds for infrastructure, salaries, and research while honoring institutional autonomy, and in return universities trained skilled professionals, investigated pressing societal problems, and provided expertise through public service.

Recent history shows that scientific discovery and innovation flourish most successfully in liberal democracies, where evidence-based scholarship is valued and governments protect the right to teach, investigate, and disseminate knowledge without interference or censorship. Yet that long-term stability is increasingly in doubt. Since the early 2000s, many democracies have faced structural, economic, and governance challenges that place them on a path of democratic regression. The rise of populist and neo-nationalist movements, often fueled by economic anxiety, cultural grievance, and demographic change, has shifted political power toward more repressive and authoritarian styles of governance. As these movements gain traction, they erode the key features of a healthy democracy, including support for academic institutions and evidence-based policy decisions.

The anti-democratic playbook, as Murray describes it, includes measures designed to limit academia’s societal influence: restrictions on institutional funding, constraints on self-governance and curricular autonomy, threats to tenure and employment security, and curbs on free expression. Repressive governments often target research that does not align with official priorities or ideology. Investigations in evolutionary biology, environmental protection, climate change impacts, and at-risk species conservation tend to be valued in functioning democracies but frequently delegitimized in more repressive regimes. Research defunding may be framed as austerity, redirecting funds toward politically aligned programs while leaving other disciplines under-resourced. Even when funding is maintained, it is often administered through cost-sharing partnerships with business or special interest groups, weakening the direct link between objective academic inquiry and societal advancement. Populist movements also promote science skepticism and diminish the role of expert knowledge in policy decisions, eroding public trust and reducing engagement in policy processes.

Democratic regression carries a second, equally damaging consequence: emerging regimes frequently prioritize economic growth over environmental protection and sustainability. As the administrative state and public service are weakened or dismantled, environmental oversight and regulations are removed, relaxed, or inconsistently enforced, resulting in reduced monitoring, declining quality standards, and diminished protection for sensitive habitats and at-risk species. Basic research, monitoring, and assessment of species and ecosystems are particularly vulnerable, whether conducted by government agencies or through partnerships with academia and non-governmental organizations. Data on environmental baselines and human impacts become less accessible while expert involvement in policy decisions is increasingly devalued. These losses activate a feedback loop: public detachment from environmental governance reinforces populist sentiments, which in turn further weaken oversight. Because many environmental problems transcend national borders, losses in one nation extend to others, leaving society in what Murray calls a perfect storm with far fewer scientific and regulatory guardrails.

The evidence is global. Democratic losses and their impacts on academia and the environment are well documented in countries such as Hungary, Turkey, India, and Russia, but similar trends, often less overt, are present in nearly all major democracies. Over the past two decades, the majority of G20 nations, representing roughly 85 percent of global GDP, 75 percent of international trade, and 67 percent of the world’s population, have exhibited signs of democratic regression, declining support for academic institutions, and weakening environmental oversight. Countries that recently signed international agreements to curb greenhouse gas emissions or expand land and water protection have quietly backtracked on their commitments. Even Canada, classified as a full democracy and celebrated for environmental stewardship, has gradually slipped in measures of democratic performance, relies increasingly on public-private partnerships that shift funding away from investigator-driven research, imposes interference on government scientists working on environmental issues, and has backtracked on commitments such as the Kunming-Montreal Framework and the Paris Climate Accord. More dramatically, the United States is in the midst of a slide into authoritarian governance with attendant erosion of its democratic, academic, and environmental standards, while China’s ascent as a superpower offers little reassurance given its authoritarian structure and low rankings in key democratic and environmental metrics.

Scientists are not powerless, and Murray outlines strategic responses drawn from a long tradition of intellectual resistance exemplified by figures such as Hannah Arendt, Bertrand Russell, and Timothy Snyder. The first priority is protecting data and countering disinformation. Public data accessibility and integrity are at risk in declining democracies, and authoritarian regimes tend not to adhere to FAIR standards, meaning datasets should be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. Hungary ended longitudinal analysis of key air and water quality datasets, while Turkey’s repressions removed key personnel responsible for monitoring endangered species, delaying critical biodiversity assessments and reducing data availability for global climate models. In response, a coalition of academics and non-governmental organizations recently downloaded a variety of public datasets prior to their deletion from United States government websites. Data custodians may archive public data in open access repositories or shared private platforms, and establishing international collaborations and data sharing pipelines early can help avoid difficulties once crackdowns arise. Growing concern that artificial intelligence will be used to track data across platforms means state surveillance and legal risks could be amplified, but custodians should not surrender data prematurely, in what Snyder terms anticipatory obedience.

When governments present false or biased information, subject-matter experts should mount a robust, evidence-based refutation. Recently, a working group cherry-picked by the United States Department of Energy used outlier data and minority viewpoints to misrepresent decades of established knowledge on the origin and implications of climate change. Experts quickly and forcefully rebutted these false claims, potentially preventing a revisionist narrative from gaining a foothold in the broader discourse. Media attention garnered by these responses placed the government in a defensive position that may limit its future ability to mislead the public on climate change matters. Scientific journals, professional societies, and media organizations should be poised to rapidly disseminate expert rebuttals while using their social media channels to amplify impact. Experts should not remain anonymous, because named authorities are more impactful, though some personal shielding is possible through large international teams and statements released through professional societies.

Sustaining research capacity under regressive regimes is the second pillar. Basic ecological and evolutionary research is especially vulnerable if seen as expensive, esoteric, or misaligned with government priorities, while long-term research and monitoring programs are particularly at risk. Once interrupted, such records cannot simply be recreated; the lost temporal baseline is permanent. Yet these programs provide essential baselines for assessing environmental change over time, effectively functioning as natural Before-After-Control-Impact designs across political and ecological transitions. Some research can persist through careful reframing to align with new mandates, securing alternative funding, or adopting automated and remote data collection. Nevertheless, many valuable projects will inevitably be curtailed, driving research programs to be terminated and some researchers to emigrate, creating a global redistribution of knowledge and expertise that exacerbates global inequities. International collaborations, open science, and virtual conferencing platforms allow local capacity and research continuity to be maintained for researchers in politically fragile regions, aided by student exchanges, advisory board participation, policy engagement, and citizen science collaborations.

The third pillar is demonstrating why ecology and evolution matter to society. Rebuilding public trust requires showing that academic contributions are not only relevant but essential. Undergraduate curricula can better align with societal and workforce needs through experiential learning, community placements, and applied training, developing soft skills while providing practical exposure to real-world challenges. Because most biology undergraduates do not pursue academic careers, early experience in applied contexts enhances employability and demonstrates tangible societal contributions. Traditional indicators of academic success, like publication counts or journal impact factors, are increasingly inadequate metrics, and scholars must seek complementary avenues to communicate the societal relevance of their work. For fundamental ecology and evolution, this task is eased by existing public interest in natural history, biodiversity, and environmental protection, especially when research is framed in terms of organism-environment interactions or conservation challenges. Ultimately, strengthening public trust will help secure sustained research funding, drive evidence-based policy, and safeguard against political efforts to discredit academia. Murray concludes that safeguarding data integrity must be treated as essential scientific infrastructure, research capacity sustained through diversified funding and international collaboration, and disinformation met with rapid, public, and collective responses. Recent political turnovers in some failing democracies suggest authoritarian trajectories are not irreversible, but the consequences of inaction will be measured not only in lost knowledge, but in lost capacity to confront the environmental challenges defining our time.

Subject of Research: Defending ecology and evolution in an age of democratic backsliding and environmental crisis

Article Title: Defending ecology and evolution in an age of democratic backsliding and environmental crisis

Article References: Murray, D. L. (2026). Defending ecology and evolution in an age of democratic backsliding and environmental crisis. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 14, Article 1761637. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2026.1761637

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fevo.2026.1761637

Keywords: Defending, ecology, evolution, democratic, backsliding, environmental, crisis, scientific research