(Science|Business) Far-right MEP takes Trump-style jab at EU research funding

For the original publication, please click here.

A member of the European Parliament has called on the EU to cut funding for research programmes addressing issues such as gender, LGBTIQ+ politics, Islam and far-right extremism. The intervention, from Hungarian MEP Tamás Deutsch, marks the first significant attempt to impose on EU research funding the kind of political restrictions introduced in the US by Donald Trump’s administration.

Deutsch, an MEP from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party, made his bid to restrict EU research funding in an interim report on the next long-term budget, released in January by the Parliament’s regional development committee. His amendment calls for “the immediate discontinuation of programmes that contribute neither to technological sovereignty nor to scientific leadership, divert resources from technological progress and undermine the credibility of research in Europe.” 

This is necessary to “refocus European research programmes on the objectives of economic competitiveness, strategic autonomy and cutting-edge innovation,” Deutsch adds.

He goes on to cite specific EU projects that should be abandoned. These include Resist, fostering queer feminist intersectional resistances against transnational anti-gender politics; You-Dare, youth debunking the gendered arguments of far-right extremism; and White Islam: a new religion for Europeans. 

Deutsch sits with the right-wing Patriots of Europe group in the Parliament, the third largest behind the European People’s Party and the Socialists and Democrats. He is also a member of the assembly’s budget and budgetary control committees.

“It is ironical that one of the goons of the Orbán regime gets to comment or, worse, makes demands about science in Europe,” said Liviu Matei, who was rector of the Central European University when it was forced by conditions in Hungary to move from Budapest to Vienna. He now heads the School of Education, Communication and Society at King’s College London. 

“His interest is not science and progress,” he told Science|Business. “Rather [. . .] this is to ventilate a primitive, half-baked version of the anti-science, anti-democratic, anti-European, and anti-humanistic ideology of his clique.”

Deutsch did not respond to a request for comment.

Writing on social media, Jan Palmowski, secretary general of the Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities, called for Deutsch’s amendment to be rejected. “De-funding major research areas that are at the cutting edge of their field would do irreparable damage to the reputation of Horizon Europe, and to European research more broadly,” he said. “Research must never ignore, for ideological reasons, what people are, what they choose, and what implications this has.”

Whether or not the amendment passes, there is a concern that Deutsch’s move could push funders and researchers to reposition their work in order to avoid triggering far-right opposition. “We can see in the US how quickly intimidation and funding policy shifts can lead to changes in behaviour,” Palmowski said. “We should beware of its beginnings in Europe.”

Gabi Lombardo, director of the European Alliance for Social Sciences and Humanities, agreed. “No doubt the amendment must be rejected, but it is also critical to raise awareness,” she wrote in response to Palmowski’s comments. “This also demonstrates the importance of a standalone programme for research and innovation, which is based on research questions and quality rather than ideology.”

“Deutsch wants his boss to hear him speak and approve; so be it, although it is all grotesque,” Matei said. “But should anybody in the Parliament listen to him, that would be tragic.”