When researchers are faced with lawsuits

Therefore, it is no coincidence that the University Act states that universities must ‘exchange knowledge and skills with the surrounding society and encourage their employees to participate in public debate’. The same principle underlies SDU’s Declaration on academic freedom from 2023. The University must create a framework that supports free debate, and researchers must be able to contribute their academic knowledge to societal conversations and decisions.

At first glance, this seems obvious. But the reality can be more complicated.

From time to time, researchers’ participation in public debates is met with more than just academic or political disagreement.

Attacks and criticism can take many different forms. Some are completely legitimate – not because the critics are necessarily right, but when researchers present their analyses and assessments, others naturally have the right to disagree. Freedom of speech goes both ways. Criticism, counterarguments and debate are a natural part of open societies. 

At other times, the criticism seems less legitimate. Either because the criticism is out of proportion, or because the attacks amount to outright personal attacks.

In Denmark and internationally, there have been cases in which researchers have been subjected to harassment, threats of legal action and attempts to put pressure on their participation in the public debate. Recently, it has even escalated to physical assaults. In a 2025 survey by Dansk Magisterforening (the Danish Association of Masters and PhDs), one in five researchers reported that they have refrained from researching certain topics due to fear of threats and harassment.

If the consequence of participating in public debates can be threats of costly lawsuits, there is a risk that some will choose silence over participation.

A university should be a place where knowledge can be brought into the light. Even when it challenges established perceptions or strong financial interests. For example, if a researcher refrains from speaking out about the negative effects associated with the use of a certain type of medicine for fear of being sued, this is not only detrimental to the individual researcher.
It is also detrimental to society. Because it means that we will miss out on the knowledge, perspectives and insights that can make us smarter and help decision-makers, companies, the media and citizens make informed decisions.

To counteract this, back in the spring of 2026 SDU’s Executive Board decided to introduce a set of principles regarding financial support for researchers who are faced with lawsuits as a result of their professional statements in public.

The decision is based on a simple principle: Following a specific assessment, researchers faced with legal action as a result of their professional statements should be eligible for financial support from the University.

As stated in the decision by the Executive Board:

‘In order to … support researchers’ freedom of debate and expression, SDU will provide financial support to researchers against whom legal action has been brought due to their public statements.

The financial support may be granted on one or more of the following alternative conditions:

1. If the statements that have given rise to a lawsuit fall within the researcher’s field of expertise and it has been proven by peers that the academic content of the statements is highly likely to be correct, or
2. if the statements concern an area within which the researcher must be assumed to be competent, even if research publications indicate that there is a risk that the researcher may not be right, or
3. if SDU, in the specific situation, assesses that the researcher is participating in the public debate with an academic point of view within their field of expertise that does not obviously go beyond the boundaries of freedom of expression’.

This does not mean that the University will endorse any statement. Nor does it mean that researchers are exempt from any responsibility. On the contrary, freedom of expression is still subject to legal accountability before the courts. If a researcher is convicted of illegal speech, SDU will not pay their fines or compensate for such matters.

But it does mean that the University is willing to take responsibility in situations in which the risk of a lawsuit may have a dampening effect on researchers’ desire to participate in the societal debate.

It is not a question of protecting researchers from criticism. It is a question of protecting the conditions that ensure that researchers still dare to bring their expertise into public debates.

At SDU, we take academic freedom seriously. This applies to both freedom of research and freedom of expression. And it applies to the University’s role as an institution that contributes knowledge for the benefit of society.

Whether the research concerns climate, health, security, geopolitics, technology or other topics that arouse strong emotions and political disagreement, fear and self-censorship must never be the answer.

SDU’s principles are tangible proof that academic freedom is not just empty rhetoric. It is something we actively safeguard.