From the Editor: Double Jeopardy for Israel's Scientific Community?

Leon Fine

Recent political events have raised important questions about the viability of the scientific community in Israel. Influences, both external and internal to the country, appear to be converging to suggest a situation of double jeopardy for this community.

First, it is relevant to understand what “scientific community” means. There are multiple areas of science in academia, in industry and in private corporations, which are subject to constant pressures. Take one sector (about which I know something) as an example: Biomedical Sciences. Within this broad discipline, which embraces laboratory, epidemiological, medical, and social sciences, are included thousands of Israeli researchers, each requiring salary and infrastructure support. Within this group there will be a handful of truly extraordinarily talented and creative individuals who stand out as being exceptional. Recognition of such individuals by the international community is usually based upon a seminal discovery or insight which often is very “fundamental”, by which is meant that the discovery has the potential to be of relevance beyond the immediate discipline from which it emerged. It could take many years, in some cases for this to be understood but in some cases, it becomes immediately apparent. Such creators often receive major prizes (e.g. Nobel, Wolf, Lasker, and Israel Prizes), with wide recognition. Not much can get in the way of this small minority which I see as being quite invulnerable to political and financial stresses.

But what of the thousands of dedicated hardworking scientists who are creative, talented and dedicated to their pursuits? Should the handful of superstars be considered the “architects” of research and the vast community of scientists who provide the essential infrastructure as being the “builders”? This would not necessarily be a popular sentiment and may be contested, but it does not denigrate the essential role of “builders” in any way. (This writer considers himself a builder!) This vast community of individuals bit-by-bit creates the infrastructure upon which great ideas are founded. By providing multiple publications and contributions, via which they carve out a niche for themselves, they are constantly laying the groundwork for their scientific discipline to expand and to grow.

It is this community which I consider to be in jeopardy.

What does such a community need to survive and to flourish? There are three necessary ingredients: (1) recognition, (2) funding and (3) politics.

Recognition: The repute of a scientific community is no longer defined by a country of origin. Science is an international endeavor and here, Israel's scientific community is currently in a brittle state. A few months prior to this writing, the Jerusalem Post published: “A triennial report: Israel science at the precipice” pointing to the fact that a number of events: political, economic, structural, and social, have converged and are eating away at the conditions upon which Israeli science has depended for many decades. “Recognition” boils down to engaged individuals and goes way beyond supporting needy egos. While an individual’s reputation is not easy to measure quantitatively, it is a key determinant of success for grant applications, for appearances at international scientific meetings internationally and for collaborations which are essential for advancement of the scientific project. The sense that the support system for this broad base is beginning to crumble nationally and has reportedly led to almost 2000 graduates more than 500 beginning- or established scientists and about 1000 physicians leaving Israel between 2023 and 2024. No one knows who among these will choose to return. The trend continues. One apparent reason for this is the perception that Israel's application and participation in multinational projects is drawing increasing scrutiny and that younger scientists and doctors may no longer be searching for post-doctoral employment.

Funding: Added to this personal element, is the reality that academic institutions worldwide have begun to sever scientific ties with Israel's scientific community. One example is Israel's researchers having been excluded from important sources of European funding. Another is the decline in invitations to participate in high-level meetings and symposia. While not only being insulting and depressing this has impacted on the personal reputations of a large number of talented scientists. When two researchers pass each other in the hallway and stop to chat the likelihood that they will talk about their funding situation is greater than that they will talk about the substance of their research!

Underfunding of universities is now universally widespread and Israel institutions are no exception. The substantial support source of income to an institution is via “indirect costs” which are added to the costs of a research project provided by a funder which go to support the institution's infrastructure. Thus, failure to get funded as an individual has a collective effect on the viability of the institution. Israel has witnessed a decline in national investment in research and development at a time when OECD countries are increasing their investments. While some Israeli scientists continue to win prestigious awards and grants, the overall success rate of Israelis winning grants, especially for early career scientists, is falling, now reaching under 10% success rate compared with around 30% in prior years. Periods of absence due to military service and population movements have certainly had a major negative impact on the outcomes of research and on the education of students.

This is not to deny that support for major investments, such as those in artificial intelligence or supercomputers for high-tech companies are being made nationally, but the expense of such investments surely steals from the limited income funding requirements of many individuals and hence from the scientific communities of many disciplines.

Politics: The fundamental culture of science is honesty, respect, openness, stability, reliability, and trust. There is no evidence that these individual qualities are being eroded by Israeli scientists, so any withdrawals of collaboration and activities by international collaborators is unlikely to be based on perceptions that such principles are being violated. On the other hand, failure of governmental support clearly undermines the stability of the national scientific community. For example, the current U.S. government has placed a tariff on universities in the USA for supposedly under-performing (real or imagined), on numerous fronts which it considers to be part of its core agenda. It has been devastating to many top-notch universities.

A treacherous recent development in Israel has reared its head in this regard. A controversial bill to amend the Council for Higher Education Law was proposed by MK Avichai Boaron in 2025. The proposed law would impose government control over appointments to the Council for Higher Education and oversight of its the $4.4 billion annual budget. The council of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities has warned that this would be a fatal blow to independent research and would destroy Israel's standing in the global scientific community.

Furthermore, the Boaron bill would impose sanctions and fines on universities and colleges and would intervene directly in the Council's work. It argues that the law would correct an anomaly so that a small number of politically motivated universities would be moved to give more representation to unfunded institutions, and funding for institutions that do not follow the desired political line would be cut.

While the above may be viewed as an unfortunate national issue, the world is watching. Could Israeli science be controlled by a government which is ignorant of academic principles?  Would its budget be cut and its leadership be held personally responsible for not falling into line with a law which would include the words “with government approval”? If it is passed into law, it would shut down the Academy since many of its members would resign.

As of this writing in March 2026, the bill has not been passed into law. The consequences if it is, are ominous.

Next Article