German American brain researcher Thomas Südhof, 69, received the 2013 Nobel prize in medicine for his work on synapses, the junctions where nerve cells communicate. In early July, he met with 32 other former Nobel prize recipients for the 74th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting on the shores of Lake Constance. The attacks on scientific research coming from U.S. President Donald Trump were among the hot topics at the gathering.

In recent months, the Trump administration has massively cut public funding to American universities, suspended the granting of visas to foreign students and fired vaccination experts from positions in government agencies. In late May, he issued an executive order calling for a "gold standard” in science, which would then be monitored by the state. Trump has justified these attacks on academic independence in part by pointing to mistakes made in laboratories run by renowned researchers.

In Südhof’s laboratory at Stanford University in California, such a mistake took place in studies about the functioning of the brain. In a lecture delivered at Lindau entitled "What Can Go Wrong?”, the Nobel laureate addressed the accusations. Prior to the presentation, he published the data from his laboratory.

DER SPIEGEL: Professor Südhof, in his executive order called "Restoring Gold Standard Science,” Trump justified his interference in scientific research in part by pointing to the fact that papers have had to be rescinded by laboratories run by preeminent scientists. Was your laboratory one of those he was referring to?

Südhof: I don’t know. But it is true: We retracted two papers, not because our results were incorrect, but because there were inconsistencies between the raw data and the graphics that we were unable to immediately resolve. The key findings of the studies were correct.

DER SPIEGEL: A number of other mistakes you made were also identified, such as certain illustrations being copied to the wrong places. The pressure on you was immense. What have you learned from this episode?

Südhof: It was instructive to reconstruct how errors could sneak into our science. Almost all of the mistakes we have made – and we have clearly made them – are due to a technical innovation: We began processing images digitally about 15 or 20 years ago. As a result, copy-paste errors were made that couldn’t be seen with the naked eye. Those mistakes have now become recognizable with the advent of artificial intelligence. That means: With a delay of 15 to 20 years, errors are suddenly visible that couldn’t be found earlier.

DER SPIEGEL: Does that mean that research results can’t be trusted because it’s impossible to know if they might contain undiscovered mistakes? Trump’s executive order claims that science is facing a reproducibility crisis, meaning that the results of many studies cannot be confirmed by others …

Südhof: I think that is incorrect. There is no such crisis. The fact that the mistakes we made were not visible to the naked eye also means that they had no influence on our scientific results. They were correct, even if the presentation contained invisible errors.

DER SPIEGEL: The executive order also says that public confidence in science is disappearing. Is there something to that claim?

Südhof: I fear there is quite a lot to it. Hostility toward science is not new in the U.S. Even before the coronavirus pandemic, propaganda driven by economic interests had strongly undermined trust in science, such as on the issue of climate change, for example. But this trend was accelerated by corona. And we must also unfortunately admit that those who have implemented research findings in politics have not always been completely truthful about it. As such, Trump’s victory can also be read as a reaction to mistakes made by scientifically oriented sectors of society.

DER SPIEGEL: What kind of mistakes do you mean?

Südhof: Some scientists fell into a kind of panic in the face of the coronavirus pandemic. The fear that millions of people might die led to measures that were not always well-founded from a scientific perspective. That is why people in socially weaker classes, who suffered the most, became increasingly skeptical. That is something that we scientists – and I’m referring to myself here too – underestimated. We should have been more careful with the measures we demanded.

DER SPIEGEL: Washington is now making radical cuts to research funding, it is disparaging vaccination programs, and it is attacking Harvard, the most renowned university in the country. How will historians of science look back on the year 2025? As a profound turning point or as a temporary aberration?

Südhof: It can already be said that it is more than just an aberration. The process is ongoing, and it is impossible to say how it will end. There is more at stake. The goal of the Trump administration is to destroy, to change and ultimately to replace the elite in the United States.

DER SPIEGEL: What will determine whether permanent damage is done to science?

Südhof: Ultimately, it will depend on whether the traditional rule of law in the United States survives or is destroyed. In a country governed by the rule of law, there is a good chance that science will adjust and find new pathways. But if the rule of law is permanently and seriously damaged, I think that would also seriously weaken science in the long term.

DER SPIEGEL: Of all the academic institutions in America, Trump has focused his attentions primarily on Harvard University. Why?

Südhof: Because it is more than just an academic institution. It is the ultimate symbol of the American elite. It is the place where the elite are educated.

DER SPIEGEL: You teach and conduct your research at Stanford, a university that is for the West Coast what Harvard is for the East Coast. Were you in any way pleased when the storm broke over Harvard?

Südhof: Absolutely not. What is going on at Harvard has deeply unsettled us here at Stanford, to put it mildly. That a U.S. president can try to dictate to a university what it should teach: In my mind, such a thing is difficult to square with the rule of law. Plus, the onslaught is certain to spread to the West Coast as well. I have no doubt that we will also come under attack.

DER SPIEGEL: How great is the temptation to stay out of the firing line when others are being targeted in the hope that you yourself will be spared?

Südhof: That is a question we have talked a lot about. I try, to the extent that I am able, to speak out against these attacks on science. But I find it deeply concerning that many leading figures in science and at universities are keeping their heads down.

DER SPIEGEL: Early on, at least, the entire scientific community appeared to be paralyzed.

Südhof: Yes, that’s true. The uncertainty has been exacerbated by the fact that we, as scientists, are faced with a dilemma. I can speak out politically as a private person. As a scientist, though, I should only speak out on scientific issues. The attack on Harvard, however, is primarily a political action. That’s why I don’t really know how to deal with it. I do not feel entitled by my role as Nobel laureate to make political recommendations.

DER SPIEGEL: "Climate change,” "gender,” "diversity”: Trump has come up with a blacklist of terms that should not, for example, appear in funding applications …

Südhof: A catastrophe. Banning words is a limitation on freedom of expression. And I see that as the most important element of our democracy. But we shouldn’t ignore the fact that the Biden administration did the same. At Stanford, too, there was a list of all kinds of words that we should no longer use. The professors protested against it, and it was then taken off the table, thank God.

DER SPIEGEL: Trump has eliminated DEI programs aimed at expanding diversity, equality and inclusion. What role do they play when it comes to the attacks on academia?

Südhof: A huge role. The Democrats promoted DEI at the universities. It apparently wasn’t clear to them how great the reservations against such programs were in the general population.

DER SPIEGEL: Do you share those reservations?

Südhof: For the most part, yes. In principle, I support the goal of these programs. Education and career opportunities must be distributed more fairly in society. We must achieve a situation in which poor people have access to the best universities if they have the necessary talent. But the way it was done was wrong.

DER SPIEGEL: How so?

Südhof: I am German, and in Germany, Jews and other minorities were persecuted and murdered for racist reasons. As such, I find it extremely problematic to divide people up according to alleged races. It was a mistake to admit people to elite universities based on race. Many saw that as discrimination because Blacks or Latinos were given preference over them. I think this was the most important reason why people voted for Trump: The population was deeply unsettled or even repulsed by the extreme emphasis placed on "social justice.” The racial component of social inequality was often given more weight than the economic component. That was simply wrong, even though the lack of equality in society is a huge problem.

DER SPIEGEL: Did you at Stanford also have such programs?

Südhof: Yes, and contrary to the declared objection of the population. Even in California, which is a very liberal state, a large majority of the population expressed its opposition to using race as a criterion for college admissions. The universities tried to do so anyway.

DER SPIEGEL: Were DEI programs controversial within Stanford as well?

Südhof: Absolutely. It wouldn’t surprise me if many of my colleagues voted for Trump because of it. I know some who certainly did.

DER SPIEGEL: Researchers have accused the Trump administration of limiting academic freedom. On the other hand, the government has a certain right to identify research priorities. How broad is that right?

Südhof: Should we have complete freedom to research whatever we want? The answer to that is clearly no. A country, a culture only has so much money available, and politics should have the right to set priorities as to how that money is used.

DER SPIEGEL: That means that if the government cuts all research into climate change because it doesn’t consider the issue to be a priority, it has a right to do so?

Südhof: I consider this decision by the Trump administration to be wrong, a fatal mistake. And of course we can argue against it from a scientific perspective. But ultimately, it is a political decision. I cannot deny politicians the right to make decisions. They have the democratic legitimacy to do so.

DER SPIEGEL: Does not science have an obligation to research an issue like climate change that is so important to humanity?

Südhof: That is an ethical question, not a scientific one. Many researchers feel ethically obligated to conduct research into things that are important to humanity. I would like to learn more about neuro-degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's, for example, because I think it is a real threat to humanity. Climate researchers certainly have excellent reasons to think the same about climate research. If I was a climate scientist, I would urge politicians to invest money in climate protection. But I cannot tell them: You have to do so. For that, democratic legitimacy is necessary.

DER SPIEGEL: Are the measures taken by the Trump administration jeopardizing the U.S.’s leading role in science?

Südhof: Yes, American science is falling back due the headwinds from their own government. And our science had already lost ground, primarily to China. The Chinese are extremely innovative, especially in technical sectors like artificial intelligence, battery technology and quantum computing. We must invest far more in science just to keep up.