German Science Organisations Prepare for Potential AfD State Victories

German Research Bodies Mobilise as AfD Threatens Scientific Autonomy

Germany’s most influential research organisations are bracing for a political earthquake. The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) is leading in opinion polls ahead of September state elections in Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg‑Vorpommern. In its manifesto, the party labels German science as being in “deep crisis”, pledges to abolish gender and postcolonial studies, and argues that research questioning mainstream views on climate change, migration and Covid‑19 is unfairly excluded from public money. The prospect of the AfD entering state government for the first time has triggered concrete countermeasures at the top of the country’s science system.

Katja Becker, president of the German Research Foundation (DFG), which distributes roughly €3.9 billion in public grants each year, told Times Higher Education that the DFG had set up a working group to examine how the foundation could become “more resilient to political changes”. Its recommendations include stronger legal support for researchers under pressure, tighter coordination among academic institutions and, as a last resort, the possibility of helping scientists relocate within Germany if their home universities become hostile. The Max Planck Society, Germany’s largest non‑university basic research organisation, is equally explicit: “We will stand our ground should there be any risk of interference with our autonomy and academic freedom,” said secretary general Simone Schwanitz.

The disquiet is not abstract. The AfD has singled out the DFG, accusing it of imposing “political requirements on every project grant”. Becker rejects that “misleading and unfounded” claim, pointing to the DFG’s independent peer‑review process. Yet the threat to university autonomy is real: state governments provide the core funding on which universities depend, and an AfD‑led administration could starve departments it dislikes, refuse to fill professorships, or simply make certain research areas impossible. “We’re starting to see a silencing effect in scientific communities,” Becker said, noting that some academics are already discussing whether to rename gender studies chairs to avoid political attack.

Why the New Funding Architecture Shields Against State-Level Meddling — But Only Partly

The new GWK funding architecture limits, but does not eliminate, state‑level mischief

A reform agreed by the Joint Science Conference (GWK) earlier this month significantly raises the hurdle for any single state to disrupt national research funding. Most decisions now require the assent of the federal government and at least 13 states, replacing a system that gave individual Länder far greater scope to block agreements. “They would need very broad consensus to achieve a complete blockage of DFG funding, which is almost impossible,” Becker said. Because Saxony‑Anhalt and Mecklenburg‑Vorpommern together command just two of the 73 votes on the DFG’s governing committees, a hostile state government cannot unilaterally halt grants. Nevertheless, Becker warns that the presence of politicians with “anti‑democratic or anti‑scientific convictions” on those committees could still cause disruption and delay.

Universities are far more vulnerable than extra‑university institutes

The Max Planck Society, like the DFG, draws the bulk of its budget (around 86 %) from federal and state coffers, but as an independent institution it is shielded from direct state line‑item control. Universities, by contrast, depend on state governments for core funding. “They could reduce or redirect the core funding of the university,” Becker explained. An AfD‑controlled education ministry could close departments, refuse to replace retiring professors, or cut laboratory budgets – moves that would cripple universities’ ability to compete for competitive DFG and European grants. The dynamic explains why the DFG’s contingency planning includes concrete relocation pathways for scientists whose home institutions can no longer sustain their work.

An international brain‑drain risk is already crystallising

Nearly half of the researchers at Max Planck institutes in the two eastern states are from abroad; across the entire society, scientists represent 136 nationalities and roughly 80 % of postdoctoral researchers come from overseas. Schwanitz acknowledges that internationally renowned scholars already weigh the political climate when deciding whether to move. “I fear that it would be bad for our reputation, but also for this country’s capacity for innovation, if we were less open to the world,” she said. The German research establishment has studied the United States’ experience under the Trump administration, where deep cuts to federal science agencies were met with what Schwanitz saw as insufficient collective action. German institutions are now explicitly coordinating: “When one of our research organisations is under attack, then the whole research system is under attack.”

How Universities Can Reinforce Academic Freedom Before the Ballot

• Join the emerging solidarity network. The DFG’s working group recommends closer coordination among academic institutions, and the Scicomm‑Support programme already offers backing to scientists under fire. University leaders in eastern states should formally link their institutions to these networks now, before any political crisis, to ensure legal and logistical support is instantly available.
• Rehearse faculty relocation arrangements. The DFG envisions helping researchers transfer to other German universities. Research‑intensive universities in other Länder should pre‑agree hosting frameworks — matching faculties, equipment compatibility and temporary funding bridges — so that a rapid move is feasible if a department is shuttered.
• Push for supermajority rules at state level. The GWK reform shows that raising the decision‑making threshold can neuter a single disruptive actor. While state higher‑education laws vary, university senates and rectors’ conferences can lobby state parliaments to embed similar consensus requirements for major budgetary and curricular decisions affecting research.
• Accelerate international recruitment transparency. The Max Planck Society already spots softer interest from overseas applicants when political signals darken. Proactively publishing independent assessments of academic freedom and research stability — separate from government messaging — can help counter a narrative that Germany is closing its doors.