A recent speech by Esra Albayrak, a Turkish sociologist and daughter of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, at the World Decolonisation Forum in Istanbul is a wake-up call for a debate Europe can no longer avoid. Albayrak called for new centres of knowledge beyond Paris, London and New York, arguing that science is never neutral and that knowledge is shaped by class, power and geography. Nothing new, you might say: this criticism is decades old. It is now widely acknowledged in the so-called “Western sciences” that modern scientific institutions did not develop outside history; colonial and dependency structures influenced who could study, publish and have their knowledge recognised; and the important contributions of Arab, Chinese, Indian and other intellectual traditions can no longer be ignored.

The danger is not a legitimate critique of the conditions under which knowledge is produced. It lies in rejecting the universal validity of knowledge itself. The decisive conflict is therefore not between “Western” and “non-Western” science. It is between an open, inherently universal scientific order and the subordination of knowledge to ethnic or religious identity, ideology or state power.

The West, in this sense, is not a geographical space. It is an idea. It rests on the conviction that truth does not belong to a ruler, party, nation or majority. Arguments must be tested through evidence. Claims must remain open to criticism. Authority cannot replace proof. A Chinese scientist defending intellectual freedom may therefore represent this “Western idea” more than an American politician who makes research grants dependent on political loyalty. Modern science is unique not because it is infallible, but because it acknowledges the possibility of its own error. Peer review, reproducibility, open debate and the freedom to challenge established knowledge are not merely technical procedures. They are safeguards against the abuse of power.

Today, these safeguards are under pressure from different directions. The first challenge comes from forms of decolonial thinking that confuse the necessary pluralisation of perspectives with epistemological relativism. We should welcome more centres of research in rising regions, more voices and more equal partnerships. But the answer to past exclusion cannot be the fragmentation of truth into separate civilisational realities. Good science is inherently plural, but it cannot cease to be universal.

The second challenge comes from within the West. The Trump administration has sought historic reductions in non-defence research spending, frozen or cancelled grants and placed growing pressure on universities and federal science agencies. This approach is not simply anti-science. It favours a particular understanding of science: research promising immediate technological, economic, military or political returns. The greater danger is turning the scientific system into an instrument of executive power. Other Western countries are not yet there, but politically driven interference through research funding and appointments is familiar elsewhere too. Going further down this path would mean the self-abandonment of the West as an idea. A country may remain geographically Western while undermining the principles that made its scientific system strong.

The People’s Republic of China presents a different and perhaps more formidable model. Its scientific achievements are remarkable. The system combines large-scale investment, long-term strategic priorities and increasingly sophisticated research institutions. But scientific performance is not the same as scientific freedom. The Communist Party-state ultimately determines the boundaries of what research may be conducted and how. Sensitive questions invite censorship and self-censorship. This control no longer ends at China’s borders. Surveillance, intimidation and pressure affect Chinese and Hong Kong students and researchers abroad. Political control becomes transnational. The result is a powerful scientific system whose openness remains conditional on political obedience.

Here lies the role of science diplomacy. Traditionally, it meant facilitating international research cooperation, bringing scientific advice into foreign policy and using science as a bridge between countries. These functions remain indispensable, as climate change, pandemics, artificial intelligence and space exploration cannot be addressed within national borders. But cooperation alone is no longer enough. Science diplomacy must now defend the conditions of science. International partnerships cannot be separated from academic freedom, institutional autonomy, reciprocity and protection against political interference.

Yet Europe still falls short in acknowledging and acting on this. Horizon Europe is one of the world’s most important platforms for international research cooperation. The EU’s Global Approach to Research and Innovation connects cooperation with academic freedom, reciprocity, research ethics and fundamental rights. Its research-security agenda seeks to protect institutions against foreign interference without abandoning openness. In May 2026, the Council adopted the first EU framework for science diplomacy. The Choose Europe for Science initiative shall attract and retain researchers facing deteriorating conditions elsewhere. These steps show that Europe is becoming more conscious of its responsibility.

However, Europe still speaks too often only about protecting research. It speaks less clearly about why free science must be defended, internally and in its global relations. Its objectives remain divided between funding, competitiveness, security and diplomacy. Despite world-class infrastructure, the European research landscape remains fragmented, and investment is highly uneven. Europe cannot credibly defend academic freedom abroad while it is under pressure in parts of the Union itself.

Europe therefore needs more than science diplomacy; it needs a diplomacy for free science. Preserving academic freedom must become a criterion for international partnerships. This means protecting threatened researchers, strengthening independent institutions and investing in long-term basic research. Open scientific communities still exist across the world, so such alliances need not become an exclusive club of “Western” nations. Membership should depend on commitment to common rules of evidence, criticism and intellectual freedom. This should be Europe’s mission. Modern science, although it evolved under specific historical conditions, belongs to no civilisation. It invites every human being to participate in the search for truth—and no one can know that truth in advance.