Føllesdal addressed the following three points:

Selection of members: In some countries, politics play a role in the selection of members, and good scientists can be barred from membership because of their outspokenness on human rights, for example. At the same time, scientists who have the “right” political views may be elected without being scientifically qualified. “An example would be the Prussian academy during the communist time, where it was impossible to become elected if you were in certain kinds of opposition and where it would be very likely you would be elected if you had the right political views.”

Freedom to do research and publish the results: Restrictions on scientists’ freedom to pursue certain kinds of research or publish the results, which can include research on violations of human rights, is another type of problem. These restrictions may also extend to the freedom of an academy to make statements or act on certain political and social issues, such as violations of human rights.

Misbehavior by academies: Another problem that sometimes arises is that academies misbehave. Because the misbehavior comes from within the academy, it is not a threat to an academy’s independence, but it is a threat to what an academy should be. “I think the Serbian academy would be an unfortunate example. They made a statement that was quite clearly racist.”

[According to the “Final Report of the United Nations Commission of Experts,” Annex IV, The policy of ethnic cleansing, prepared by M.Cherif Bassiouni, “The SANU (Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences) Memorandum ... expressed in emotional terms the plight of Kosovo’s Serbs. The Memorandum, drafted by the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, was considered by many to be the heralding of a new ethnic nationalism. It was apparently instrumental in spreading anti-Albanian sentiment. Perhaps most important, it also placed the imprimatur of Serbia’s most prestigious intellectuals on the cause of militant Serbian nationalism.”]

Føllesdal reported that the member who was mainly responsible for drafting this statement was Mihailo Markovitch, about whom he told a rather ironic story. About 25 years ago, Markovitch had been the object of a letter-writing campaign to President Tito by philosophers in many different countries, including Føllesdal, because the Praxis group to which Markovitch belonged was barred from teaching. Those letters had a positive effect because Tito was worried about his public image, so he allowed members of the group to teach again. “Markovitch, who benefited at that time from the public protest, then goes on, years later, to write an atrocious statement which was accepted, with some modifications, by the Serbian academy. This is also a kind of threat that we should react against.”