November 15–16, 2025, in New Jersey, the Gamow Prize ceremony, established by the Russian-American Science Association (RASA-America), will take place. One of this year’s laureates is Professor of Chemistry at the University of Southern California, Anna Krylov. In October, she announced a boycott of the Nature Publishing Group, refusing to peer-review a manuscript for the journal Nature Communications — due to disagreement with the policy of promoting the social justice agenda. According to Krylov, the Nature Publishing Group undermines the integrity of the editorial process by using identity criteria instead of meritocracy and resorts to censorship under the pretext of preventing “harm” to vulnerable groups. Many other scientists agree with her, including the well-known science popularizer Richard Dawkins. T-invariant spoke with Anna Krylov about why politics has no place in science, what scientists can be canceled for, and how to resist scientific censorship.
T-INVARIANT REFERENCE
Professor of chemistry at the University of Southern California. She received her PhD from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She conducts research in theoretical and computational chemistry, developing methods for theoretical modeling of open-shell molecules and electronically excited molecules, including metastable systems (resonances). President of Q-Chem, Inc. — a company that develops quantum chemistry software. Laureate of several prestigious awards, including the Barry Prize from the American Academy of Arts and Letters and The Plyler Prize for Molecular Spectroscopy. Elected member of the International Academy of Quantum Molecular Science, Academia Europaea, the American Academy of Arts and Letters, and American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
T-invariant: You received the Gamow Prize “for pioneering contributions to theoretical and computational chemistry, especially for the development of new methods for theoretical modeling of open-shell molecules and electronically excited molecules.” Tell us, what are you working on now? What is the essence of the new methods for theoretical modeling of molecules and the practical value of such developments?
Anna Krylov: In the most general terms, I am engaged in quantum chemistry — this is the application of quantum mechanics to molecules. This is a very mature field that has produced many powerful methods, which in many cases allow us to replace experiments with computations. But there are also entire areas where quantum chemistry is helpless. And this is my main interest — to extend these methods and learn to work in domains where ordinary techniques fail.
My group is working on three directions. The first is the development of methods for describing spectroscopy in high-energy regimes, such as with X-ray radiation. These are important experimental methods, however, to interpret them, one needs to extend quantum mechanics. The second direction, related to this, is the description of states in the continuum, such as those of free electrons, molecules, and electrons in plasma. This is important for many applications, in particular for chemistry under high-energy conditions and in the presence of radiation. From a theoretical point of view, this is one of the most difficult problems, posing both conceptual and technical challenges, one could say, since the times of Gamow. The third direction is quite new; it is related to the CISS effect, or chiral-induced spin selectivity effect — this is when chiral molecules can act as spin filters, that is, exhibit different spin-dependent conductivity. This is amazingly interesting: experiments show that the effect exists, but it is unclear why it arises. All these directions of work help understand fundamental processes and laws. In addition, there are many practical applications for them: for example, they can expand technologies for energy conversion and utilization, catalysis, quantum information. Everything always starts with fundamental understanding; the first step is for physicists and chemists to figure out how the effect works. How to then translate this deep understanding into technology — that is already the task of engineers.
Some things we already understand well now and have developed methods that can be applied routinely. For example, for states in the continuum, there is a set of methods that other groups are already using to interpret their results. And in some places, we are at the very beginning of the path, for example, regarding the CISS effect. It is not yet clear how biological homochirality arose in biology, for example, why proteins use only one type of amino acid molecule — L-amino acids (which are like left-handed gloves), while D-amino acids (which are like right-handed gloves) are not used. There is no generally accepted explanation; perhaps the CISS effect will help figure out how it happened.
There are interesting experiments; we are trying to look at them from the point of view of theory, but there are no answers yet. This is what makes science wonderful — you never get bored; you wake up in the morning and can’t stop thinking about what can be done to solve the puzzle, how to move forward.
DEI: Discrimination, Entitlement and Intimidation?
T-i: Has anything changed in your work or the work of your colleagues since the election, when Trump became president, and if so, what? How has this affected your scientific field?
AK: A lot has changed — the shift was monumental. I will start with the positive changes, which is perhaps somewhat unexpected. The most important thing is the departure from DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies and the restoration of meritocracy principles and scientific independence. In my opinion, this is wonderful. Trump, already in January, forced federal scientific agencies, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy, National Institutes of Health (NIH), to cancel DEI initiatives. Before January, we had to submit with each technical grant a “pledge of allegiance” and plans on how we would promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in our work. That is, no matter what a scientist does, they must contribute to “advancing the world revolution,” as in the old days. Now this has been canceled. Trump is also fighting illegal discrimination based on identity in universities. Perhaps he is acting too aggressively, but this is still good because the discrimination was massive; it was both unfair and unwise from the point of view of progress and science.
PREVIOUSLY IN T-INVARIANT
Selection of the Best vs Academic Equality: Why DEI Practices Do Not Take Root in Germany (in Russian)
Not Only DEI and DOE: How Trump’s Policy Is Destroying American Science (in Russian)
There are also negative aspects. As we expected, uncertainty and chaos have arisen. For example, the US government has suspended operations; federal agencies are not working, grant review panels have been canceled — that is, the review of grant applications. Many universities are under sanctions — perhaps justly, since they were caught in discrimination and antisemitism, but many scientists, especially those working in STEM, are being punished unfairly. Sanctions are imposed on the entire university, so all scientists there cannot continue their work. In some universities, funding for all programs is frozen without any explanations — this is also enormous harm to science.
I had hoped that with these changes we would see a reduction in bureaucratic requirements, but it is not yet clear whether this will happen or not. I am an optimist and believe that once everything settles down, we will be in a better place than before.
T-i: Recently, you refused to review an article for the journal Nature and refused, in principle, to collaborate with this group of journals because it promotes the social justice agenda. Why, in your opinion, are such attempts to ensure equal access to visibility for scientists from different groups, such as initiatives addressing women researchers and “citation justice,” harmful to science? And why do you think that Trump’s fight against DEI reduces discrimination rather than increases it?
AK: It’s worth recalling Orwell’s lessons here. DEI — diversity, equity, and inclusion. It seems wonderful; what monster could object?
In fact, this system works roughly like the Ministry of Love from 1984. My translation of DEI is not diversity, equity, and inclusion, but discrimination, entitlement, and intimidation. That is what they do in practice. I believe that DEI is fundamentally at odds with justice and with the ideas of the Enlightenment, which are the foundation of a democratic society.
We should judge people by their merits, by what they do, by the contribution they make to science. But under DEI policies, people are evaluated by group affiliation. This is reminiscent of how it was in the Soviet Union. If a person belongs to the class of workers and peasants, that’s good, but if they’re born into a family of intellectuals — or, worse, one with bourgeois heritage — then they are an undesirable class element, regardless of what they think and do.
To sum up, I am against DEI in science for two reasons. The first is pragmatic: if we replace meritocracy and consideration of merits with ideology, science suffers, as resources are distributed without regard to the contributions and potential of scientists, but according to principles of some social justice. The second reason is moral. Such distribution of resources is deeply unfair; it undermines the basic principles of humanism and in practice leads to discrimination. For example, now we see discrimination against men, and it is no better than the discrimination against women that existed earlier. We should try to build a society that gives everyone equal opportunities and evaluates people adequately based on their merits, not a society where everyone is evaluated by skin color or gender characteristics, which is unfair and inefficient.
T-i: What, then, should be done with the problem of social justice and unequal access, discrimination against scientists from certain groups? Have you personally encountered such problems as a woman scientist, and what measures can help here?
AK: This question has concerned me for many years; I started my career amid overt discrimination and cultural bias against women. I could tell many stories about what it was like back then, just as we all remember the stories of Marie Curie, Lise Meitner, and other women scientists who faced incredible injustice. Today the situation has changed dramatically. Questions about discrimination and bias can be addressed through research and statistics. For example, together with my statistician colleague, we analyzed one of the articles that is often cited as proof of bias against women in academia. The researchers evaluated the acceptance rate of scientific articles in journals, taking into account the authors’ gender. First, the difference between the cohorts of men and women was small — within 1–2%. Second, to evaluate adequately the results, one needs to consider confounding factors. In medicine, it is well known that if researchers want to determine, for instance, whether Coca-Cola affects health, it is not enough to show that people who drink a lot of this soda develop some disease. One needs to account for other factors that may cause the disease: bad habits, economic status, and so on. The same applies to studies examining publication or citation rates. Even if we see different results for women and men, one must account for confounding factors. For example, if on average the female cohort is younger than the male one, the result will naturally be different. Of course, differences in cohort age may themselves be a consequence of discrimination, but to correctly answer the question of whether there is bias in publications and citations, one must first correctly analyze the data.
In many studies cited to support DEI, this has not been done. Many social psychologists are now seriously studying this issue. For example, in 2023, a large-scale meta-analysis by three authors was published; they examined all works published up to that time on the topic to investigate bias against women in STEM. They competently analyzed the data, controlling for all possible factors, and examined evidence of discrimination against women in hiring and journal article acceptance, in salary, in grant evaluation, recommendation letters, and teaching quality assessment.
It turned out that in most areas there is no bias, and the salary gap was not as significant as usually claimed — not 20%, but about 4%. This probably also needs to be addressed, but the problem is clearly not as great as often portrayed. Moreover, the study found a strong bias in favor of women in hiring. I see this in practice too: young guys who want to work but are not allowed to prove themselves just because of their gender. This is just as unfair as the attitude toward women 50 years ago.
In my opinion, there are already enough studies — although their publication is being suppressed — showing that the culture, the system of academic science, and demographics have changed so much that we can close the chapter on discrimination against women in developed countries and move on to other societal problems.
The Cancellation of Russian Culture and Humanism
T-i: RASA is an association that unites scientists from the former Soviet Union countries working or studying outside Russia, regardless of their citizenship, religion, political views, and economic interests. And how do you think, can a scientist be outside politics?
AK: I believe that a scientist should be outside of politics in the sense that when they are in the laboratory, politics should remain outside the door; one needs to focus on science and research. It is also important for scientists to remain outside politics when they serve as experts, advising politicians. If they don’t, they lose trust; they won’t be taken seriously.
At the same time, scientists are people and citizens, and they have political views. For a democracy to thrive, they must participate in the political life of the country, including elections and in various political movements. At the same time, it is important to separate what we do as citizens outside science and what we do as scientists. This is not always easy, but it should be the goal.
T-i: How important are initiatives like RASA now, which unite scientists and support representatives of the Russian-speaking diaspora?
AK: Russian-speaking scientists from the former Soviet Union possess a unique collective experience. I believe that it is necessary for Western society. People of my generation know well in practice what communism is, how it is masked by beautiful slogans. We easily recognize Marxism in contemporary postmodernist ideologies. I think that we can help Western society recognize the danger of these ideologies, which are pervasive, especially in universities, and now are influencing politics as well. There is a vast and important layer of Russian culture that the Russian-speaking diaspora can support and spread. In addition, intellectual capital is important. Scientists who emigrate make a great contribution to Western science.
T-i: You often emphasize the danger of communism and Marxism. However, totalitarian ideologies can be not only left-wing, but also right-wing. Won’t fight against the “left,” including Trump’s actions against universities, strengthen them?
AK: Such a danger always exists; some use the pendulum analogy — it can swing too far the other way. We must be vigilant, but in my opinion, there is no real danger yet. The main reason is the thorough discrediting of right-wing extremist ideologies, such as fascism or nationalism. You are unlikely to find many people who will defend them or try to revive them. In my opinion, these are ideas that have been defeated and destroyed, and now pose no danger. Perhaps this will change, but no such trend is apparent yet.
As for the ideas of socialism and communism, they have not been defeated. During the Cold War, there was some understanding that they are hostile to the ideas of enlightenment and humanism. However, at the same time, partly thanks to the broad propaganda of the Soviet regime, there has always been a significant segment of people among the intelligentsia, especially in universities, who were sympathetic to left-wing ideas.
According to data from a number of surveys, now in the academic environment there is a clear skew towards left-wing views — more than 60% of university professors identify themselves as far-left and liberals (that is, moderately left), and only 12% consider themselves conservatives or far right. It is telling that 40% of professors are extremists. At the same time, if we take Americans as a whole, most of them hold moderate centrist views.
T-i: What do you think about the cancellation of Russian culture in Western countries? Is this still an issue? Does canceling extend to some extent to Russian scientists?
AK: It is. I am fundamentally opposed to the cancellation of Russian culture, because such boycotts contradict the principles of humanism and enlightenment. Again, because people should be evaluated by their views and contribution to science, not by which group they belong to, especially not by the accident of their place of birth.
Sometimes, journals do not publish Russian scientists, although in most cases, no such discrimination occurs, except for the refusal to publish scientists working in institutes under sanctions. It happens that researchers from Russia are not invited to conferences. And in some European countries, Russian citizens are not accepted into universities as professors and postdocs, for example in Poland and the Czech Republic, including scientists who have lived in the USA for several years but want to change jobs. This is both unfair and wrong from a practical point of view, as these people are not allowed to contribute to science.
T-i: There is an opinion that the emigration of scientists from Russia and their integration into Western science is practically the only way to preserve Russian science, which at home is “suffocating” from censorship and corruption.
AK: Unfortunately, in my opinion, this is the case. Of course, I would like to see Russia as part of the Western world, to see a revival of scientific traditions, but this is not happening yet. Therefore, now the focus should be on individuals. I believe that we should try to help individual scientists contribute to science. Should positive changes ever occur in Russia, I am sure that many will want to return and help Russian science recover, but so far I do not see positive trends.
T-i: And how are things now with political censorship in American science? Has it changed direction? For example, there are data that there was previously a tendency to discriminate against supporters of conservative views. However, since the beginning of Trump’s last term, science has encountered censorship of research that is rather left-wing, for example, concerning gender issues.
AK: Yes, Trump’s policies could also lead to censorship, but so far I do not see such effects. In January 2025, our University of Southern California hosted a conference “Censorship in Science: Interdisciplinary Perspectives”. We explored how censorship in science manifests itself at present. And the main mechanism is peer-to-peer — that is, scientists censor themselves. For example, when hiring or reviewing articles, other scientists decide who gets hired or published. According to surveys, 30 percent of professors in California openly state that they will obstruct hiring, article publication, and grant funding by conservative colleagues.
Up-to-date videos on science during wartime, interviews, podcasts, and streams with prominent scientists — subscribe to the T-invariant YouTube channel!
In the USA, the government has limited ability to censor science, since it does not control scientific publications, professional scientific communities, research conducted in private universities, and hiring. It has direct control only over national laboratories. Control over universities is indirect, only through their funding, that is, it can defund certain areas, which we are seeing now, for example, in NIH. In and of itself, this is not censorship, but it can constitute politicization of science, unacceptable political interference in science. Here we must carefully discern what is acceptable and what is not.
The Trump administration has canceled several thousand grants; there is a database of grants from the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, where one can see which ones. At NSF, about 2000 grants were suspended, most of which, in my opinion, cannot be called scientific. For example, projects on identifying and addressing racial injustice in teaching natural sciences, assessing the bioethical consequences of creating a network of indigenous scientists in genomics, and so on. At NIH, the situation is different; many more grants were terminated there — more than 5000, and many appear to be legitimate research, for example, concerning mRNA vaccines. I am not a specialist in this field and cannot assess their quality, but there is cause for concern that political reasons will lead to serious research being defunded. Of course, this is wrong, but so far I do not see a real danger. I have great respect for NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya and hope that changes to the Institute’s research portfolio are being made based on sound scientific rationale, not political games.
Sunlight Is the Best Disinfectant
T-i: How do you think, can the state evaluate who among scientists can and who cannot receive a grant? And should it?
AK: In principle, government representatives, decision-makers, politicians, and citizens should be involved in the conversation. It is quite reasonable for the government to set priorities, as resources are always limited and it is necessary to decide where to invest money and what will be the strategic direction. In itself, this is not politicization of science. The question is the extent and manner in which this is done: when it is based on substantive recommendations from scientists and experts, it is reasonable, but when it is a bureaucratic micromanagement, then no. Government decisions to cancel research funding for scientific projects, in my opinion, are undesirable, but I recognize that they can be made, as funding organizations are accountable to taxpayers. If they, based on rigorous analysis, have come to the conclusion that certain research directions need to be reviewed, this is justifiable.
T-i: You have spoken out against censoring research results that may be potentially “harmful” to certain groups, as in the journal Nature Human Behaviour. How do you think, where is the line between censorship and ethical standards? For example, earlier there could exist such “science” as eugenics — such ideas need to be moderated somehow by the scientific community?
AK: Even discussing eugenics, we need to distinguish between research that tries to understand how genetics influences human potential, and specific unethical actions, such as sterilization. As for Nature Human Behaviour, in my opinion, it is presumptuous of them to assume that they can assess how individual scientific studies can affect the future of humanity or certain groups of people. Scientific work can lead to both negative outcomes and remarkable breakthroughs. History of science shows, that predicting the effects of discoveries is virtually impossible. There are examples when research deemed undesirable at the time led to advancements that benefited society.
The harm caused by a scientific article, in order for it to be censored, must be both obvious and significant. If we imagine a hypothetical scientific work that definitely should not be published, it would be something like an article that provides school-level instructions on how to build an atomic bomb at home or breed a pandemic virus. Instances where such censorship might be justified are theoretically possible but exceedingly rare in practice.
In addition, censorship in science contradicts Enlightenment principles. Knowledge should belong to society; it is arrogant to assume that society is incapable of evaluating and applying knowledge correctly.
Of course, ethics committees, research oversight, and so forth are necessary. They exist, especially in biology and medicine, where special approvals must be obtained. This is also a separate topic — how Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), that is, committees that review and approve research protocols involving humans to protect participants’ rights, have evolved in their function over time. Initially, they were supposed to prevent unethical research, such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, where patients with the disease were observed but left untreated, although treatment existed. This was unacceptable and should not have occurred. At the same time, today IRBs often function as instruments of bureaucratic censorship, for example, in social psychology, when scientists may not be given permission for research because the questions they ask allegedly harm participants.
In October 2025, a special issue featuring materials from our conference on issues of scientific censorship was published in the Journal of Controversial Ideas. One of the articles focuses specifically on IRBs and how they need to be reorganized to restore their original important ethical function and to prevent them from becoming another mechanism of bureaucratic censorship that indiscriminately suppresses research and undermines scientific progress.
T-i: How can scientists resist censorship?
AK: We need to openly speak out against it. Conformity is wrong. We cannot remain silent and accept censorship. There is an expression: “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” If we publicly speak out and expose abuses to the light, we counteract the censors. I’d like to quote one of the organizers of our conference — Cory Clark. She said that censors are like jewel thieves who operate best in the dark, hoping no one will notice the theft. When people see how editorial boards block the publication of research, they will understand how such theft of knowledge harms science.
T-i: In one of your speeches, you said that scientists should think of themselves as citizens of the world. Why is this important?
AK: Science and culture should transcend borders. They should unite, reflect our shared aspiration for truth. It has always seemed to me wrong to define oneself primarily as a representative of some identity group or nationality. What unites us is important, not what divides us. Now we need to reaffirm this, as there is a tendency for people to try to define themselves by belonging to groups and prioritize narrow interests. However, the interests of humanity as a whole are always more important than the interests of individual groups, as what is important for all humanity helps everyone.
T-i: You speak out against the cancel culture of scientists from past centuries who, according to the norms of modern ethics, committed unacceptable acts — after all, they lived in a different reality, and censorship prevents new generations of scientists from properly understanding the history of science. And what approach should there be to contemporaries? Do genius and scientific merits justify immorality, conformism, or more serious misconduct? Is there a place in science for people who hold openly anti-humanistic ideologies or pro-war views?
AK: This is a complex issue. If someone breaks the law, of course, sanctions should follow. But I am concerned that we have now greatly expanded the definition of unacceptable conduct, venturing into the realm of moralizing. For example, when scientists are persecuted for jokes, words, or on the basis of accusations without evidence. All this is again unfair and harmful to science. I am also concerned about who gets to evaluate, whom we allow to define what is virtue, who has the right moral principles, and who is on the wrong side of history. It is easy to see where such cancel culture can lead.
I believe that the boundary should be drawn by actions, not by views. Suppose someone verbally supports a war based on their convictions — in my opinion, this is very different from actively supporting the war, for example, through material aid. The latter may warrant sanctions. For example, in the USA now, various restrictions are imposed on citizens of China. I see a rational basis for this, as there are studies directly related to strategic technologies. Here one can limit access, but it must be handled delicately without overstepping.
T-i: You talk a lot about the fact that in totalitarian societies science is always less developed than in liberal pluralistic ones. What are the main reasons for this? Why, in your opinion, can science not develop within strictly limited frameworks by the regime and under state control, even if huge resources are poured into its development?
AK: The central factor is the lack of intellectual freedom; many scholars in the sociology of science wrote about this, such as Robert K. Merton. When intellectual freedom is limited or attempted to be influenced, this deprives scientists of the opportunity to explore new frontiers, stifles scientific progress. A second factor is bureaucratization. In all totalitarian regimes, bureaucracy wields significant power. This results in scientists being controlled by people who lack understanding of science and who have no interest in advancing it.
Furthermore, science in such countries is inefficient. In all politicized totalitarian regimes, access to scientific careers is controlled, either based on identity or political views. Naturally, this is detrimental, as it excludes people who could contribute. For example, in Russia, Jews were discriminated against for many years, barred from scientific careers. Another example is the Soviet satellite program, whose successes were achieved despite immense barriers. Only the personal genius of Korolev, his drive, and administrative abilities made these achievements possible. But this cost enormous efforts and funds, so in the end, the Soviet space program lost the race to the Moon.
T-i: There is an opinion that investments by states in military technologies are one of the important factors of scientific and technological progress, “war is the engine of progress,” and so on. How do you feel about this?
AK: Unfortunately, I believe there is some truth to this statement — based on historical examples. When society faces existential threats, even the most authoritarian regimes understand that they must allow scientists to work and loosen controls. Therefore, for example, physicists in Stalin’s Russia avoided the fate of geneticists, because an atomic bomb was needed. In the West, when the Soviet Union achieved successes in space, this compelled governments to rethink the role of science, understand the importance of education, and motivate people to pursue scientific research. Even China has introduced elements of meritocracy in science, recognizing that without it, there is no chance of success. Of course, it would be much better if politicians and society valued fundamental science not out of fear, but for its creative potential. But observation suggests, fear sometimes forces them to make the right decisions.