Science, politics and ideologies: Global political developments towards isolationism, ideology or disregard of facts have scientists concerned about the free exchange of ideas and people.

Abstract

Since his inauguration as President of the USA in January 2017, Donald Trump has ushered in various measures that are widely perceived as anti‐science, such as the infamous travel ban on people arriving from seven Muslim countries. At the same time Brexit, the UK's impending departure from the EU, has begun to worry scientists across the continent and beyond over the potential impact on research. Other events, such as turmoil in the Middle East and the continuing threat of terrorism, have also contributed to a negative mood. There have been some positive developments too, such as the election of Emmanuel Macron as president of France with his pro‐science rhetoric and his promise to act as a counterweight to the USA with the “Make Our Planet Great Again” competition. It could also be argued that one country's loss is another's gain: Canada, for example, has been attracting more graduate‐student applicants at the expense of the USA since Trump's election (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/20/canadianuniversities-post-large-gains-international-applications). ### The impact of international mobility However, such gains may be illusory in a global context, as science as a whole suffers whenever there is any friction over travel, collaboration and exchange of information, especially when it affects the USA as the world's leading power in research. So far, firm evidence on how collaboration and mobility affects science has been lacking, but Brexit and Trump's election in particular have galvanized new efforts to gain more solid data. The US National Science Foundation (NSF), in collaboration with the Spanish Ministry for Economy and Competitiveness, analysed the impact of mobility on a more clearly defined basis [1]. Not surprisingly, their study showed strong correlations between mobility, collaboration and scientific impact. The study was careful to avoid equating impact factor with quality of research and took account of other factors, such as influence, by mapping mobility to …