Academic Solidarity e.V.

The most important question of the future is not “What can robots do?” The real question is: What will humanity allow robots to do?

Once, robots were humanity’s greatest dream. They would do the heavy work for us, work tirelessly in factories, undertake dangerous tasks, and provide humans with more leisure time, prosperity, and security. Today, this dream is partially realized. Artificial intelligence writes, draws, codes, and analyzes; robots produce goods in factories. Autonomous systems are even taking on an increasingly important role on the battlefield. But behind this development, an increasingly pressing question emerges: If machines produce, algorithms make decisions, and robots fight, what will humanity’s economic, social, and moral place be?

This question is no longer a subject for science fiction literature. “Lights-out factories,” or “dark factories,” as they are called, are unmanned or nearly unmanned production facilities that can operate without human intervention, even without the need for light. According to Siemens, these types of factories are facilities with a level of automation that allows them to operate with near-zero on-site human intervention, even in the dark (https://www.siemens.com/en-us/technology/lights-out-factory).

This image is technologically impressive, but also symbolic. The factory is still producing, the machines are still running, goods are on the market, but the worker is no longer there.

Artificial intelligence and robotization are often described in terms of efficiency, innovation, and competitiveness. If a machine can do the same job faster, cheaper, and more accurately, the company wants to replace the worker with the machine. When a competitor does this, others are forced to follow suit to avoid falling behind…

A study published in March 2026, titled “The AI Layoff Trap” (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.20617), argues that this process could create a more dangerous economic trap than it appears. The article’s central argument is this: Even if companies act rationally individually, they can still enter an automation race that harms the system as a whole. Because workers are not only a cost of production but also consumers. When workers’ incomes decrease, the customer base that buys the companies’ products also weakens.

In other words, companies can replace workers with artificial intelligence and robots to reduce costs in the short term. But when all companies do the same, society’s purchasing power decreases. People who become unemployed or whose incomes fall consume less. Thus, companies weaken their own customer base.

The International Labor Organization’s 2025 update indicates that the highest exposure to generative AI is seen particularly in office and administrative occupations, and that exposure is also increasing in digitized professional and technical occupations (https://www.ilo.org/publications/generative-ai-and-jobs-2025-update). Therefore, the issue is no longer just about the factory worker, but also about the white-collar worker, the young graduate, the academic, the translator, the lawyer, the teacher, and even the doctor.

In such a scenario, it is not surprising that the rich get richer. Because the ownership of robots, artificial intelligence systems, data infrastructures, and platforms is mostly in the hands of capital owners. If labor incomes weaken while capital incomes increase, income distribution worsens further. This is not only an economic injustice, but also a risk of democratic breakdown. Because when economic power is concentrated, political influence is also concentrated.

Therefore, the debate on robotization is inevitably linked to the debate on the welfare state. If an ever-larger segment of society is excluded from regular, full-time, secure jobs, how will traditional social security systems survive? How will insurance systems built on work function when work itself is fragmented?

The article “The AI Layoff Trap” issues an important warning. According to the authors, a universal basic income can support people’s purchasing power, but it does not directly eliminate the fundamental incentive for firms to replace workers with artificial intelligence. So, basic income can be a social buffer, but it may not stop the automation race itself.

The article, therefore, discusses the idea of a “Pigouvian automation tax” as a more targeted tool that reflects the social cost of automation on firms. How this proposal would be implemented in practice is, of course, debatable. Which technology is a productivity boost, and which is excessive automation creating social costs? Will every firm using robots be taxed? Will small businesses and tech giants be evaluated the same way? These are not easy questions.

But the debate itself is important. Because the issue is not about stopping technology; it’s about democratically managing the social consequences of technology. Which jobs we will automate, which areas we will protect human labor in, and who will share the profits from increased productivity are all political choices.

On the other hand, it was assumed that activities such as scientific thinking, critical analysis, writing, teaching, and interpretation could not be easily automated. Today, this assumption is being shaken. Artificial intelligence systems can search literature, summarize texts, write statistical code, produce evaluations similar to peer-reviewed reports, and prepare course materials.

If universities and research institutions use artificial intelligence not to strengthen academic freedom, critical thinking, and scientific quality, but to reduce costs, standardize courses, reduce staff, and increase productivity pressure, then academia will also suffer from the social crisis of robotization.

The darkest dimension of robotization emerges on the battlefield. When technology, which replaces human labor in the factory, begins to decide about human lives on the battlefield, the issue is no longer just economics, but human rights.

Autonomous weapon systems are discussed as systems capable of selecting and striking specific targets without human intervention. At the United Nations level, “lethal autonomous weapon systems” have been on the agenda for years. The UN Office for Disarmament reports that Secretary-General António Guterres finds such systems “politically unacceptable” and “morally reprehensible,” and has called for their prohibition under international law (https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/emerging-challenges/lethal-autonomous-weapon-systems).

War is already one of the gravest moral crises in human history. If the decision to kill is increasingly left to machines, the threshold for war may also decrease. Because states whose soldiers face a reduced risk of death may more readily resort to military intervention. Robot soldiers, by making war appear “cleaner,” could actually make it more widespread.

According to a Reuters report from March 2026, international talks in Geneva emphasized the urgent need to advance rules on lethal autonomous weapon systems. It was noted that 128 states were considering a non-binding text, but binding global standards were not yet in place. This delay is significant because technology is advancing faster than law (https://www.reuters.com/world/progress-rules-lethal-autonomous-weapons-urgently-needed-says-chair-geneva-talks-2026-03-03).

If artificial intelligence and robotization are seen only as tools for cost reduction, workforce reduction, profit increase, and military superiority, the result could be a more unequal, insecure, and dangerous world. But if technology is linked to democratic oversight, social justice, ethical limits, and human rights, it can become a tool that facilitates human life rather than destroys human labor.

Robotization is inevitable, but what kind of robotization we will experience is not. This is a choice that is as much moral and political as it is technical. Humanity faces two paths: The first path involves robots producing, artificial intelligence making decisions, capital becoming even more concentrated, the middle class shrinking, people becoming insecure, and machines killing on battlefields. The second path involves using technology to improve human lives rather than devaluing human labor, sharing profits with society, strengthening the welfare state, maintaining academia and education’s humane character, and ensuring that decisions about life and death in war are not left to algorithms.

Therefore, the most important question of the future is not “What can robots do?” The real question is: What will humanity allow robots to do?

The Jeffrey Epstein files are not merely the dark biography of a pervert. They serve as a window into the climate of decay in which Western elites live. These files have not yet fully revealed all the relationships, all the chains of mediation, all the cover-up mechanisms. But we already know this: the system that lectures the world on law, transparency, and human rights is extremely reluctant to control the power networks at its own center. The Epstein case is not an exception in this respect, but a symptom (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-publishes-35-million-responsive-pages-compliance-epstein-files).

We see the same symptom on a much more destructive scale in foreign policy. While tens of thousands of people are dying in Gaza, the language of international law is largely selective. While settler violence escalates in the West Bank and deaths continue in Gaza even after the ceasefire, the discourse of “rules-based order” has become not a principle but a tool of geopolitical privilege. International institutions have spoken, courts have issued rulings, reports have been published… But political wills, especially in Western capitals, lack the courage to apply these norms equally to everyone.

https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192/provisional-measures

https://www.ochaopt.org/content/humanitarian-situation-report-10-april-2026

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/unicef-says-israeli-fire-kills-two-gaza-water-truck-drivers-2026-04-18

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/average-47-women-girls-killed-daily-during-gaza-war-un-says-2026-04-17

https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges

Mücahit Bilici’s latest article discusses this transformation. He describes it with a harsh metaphor: As the old empire crumbles, a new techno-military regime is born (https://serbestiyet.com/featured/eski-imparatorluk-yeni-imparatorluk-235011/). This diagnosis may seem exaggerated; however, the direction it points to should be taken entirely seriously. Because today, the crisis of the West is not just a crisis of hypocrisy. What is deeper is a political complacency that no longer even deems hypocrisy necessary. As Bruno Maçães points out, the problem is not just double standards; sometimes it is the outright suspension of standards. As analyses published in POMEPS show, in the liberal international order, hypocrisy is not an aberration, but often the way the order operates. Gaza, however, has made this invisible (https://time.com/6553708/gaza-end-of-western-hypocrisy-essay/).

Therefore, what we are experiencing today is not just an Israeli-Palestinian issue. The question is, what moral language does Western civilization use to legitimize itself, and why has that language lost its credibility? The debates surrounding Pankaj Mishra (https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/gaza-and-the-end-of-history/) and the writings of Omar El Akkad (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/24/omar-el-akkad-gaza-west-interview) argue that Gaza represents a historical turning point for millions, exposing the true face of Western liberalism. People are no longer simply saying, “The West has acted inconsistently again”; they are arriving at a harsher conclusion: Perhaps the problem isn’t inconsistency at all, but the system itself.

The shift in US public opinion confirms this. According to Pew data from April 2026, 60% of Americans hold a negative view of Israel. The percentage of those who distrust Netanyahu is roughly at the same level (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/04/07/negative-views-of-israel-netanyahu-continue-to-rise-among-americans-especially-young-people/). As the Guardian reports, traditional consensus in Washington is being shaken; in fact, there is a record level of opposition in the Senate to arms support for Israel (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/17/slump-in-voters-support-for-israel-shakes-us-consensus-over-military-aid). In other words, the distance between society and the power apparatus is growing. It no longer seems that everything states do is based on the consent of their societies. This poses a new question: Are Western elites becoming detached from the moral intuition of their own people?

In this context, the Epstein files regain significance. Because the issue isn’t necessarily about proving that everything is planned by a secret organization controlled from a single center. The issue is the existence of an ecosystem where power, money, intelligence, politics, media, and blackmail intersect. In such an ecosystem, some individuals fall, some files are opened, some scandals come to light, but the structure’s logic doesn’t change easily. What makes sexual crime networks possible internally, and war crimes and collective punishment possible externally, is the same culture of elite impunity.

The real rupture is happening here: For a long time, the West relied on a narrative of universal values that it presented to the world. Now, instead of preserving that narrative, it is exhibiting a power practice that risks abandoning it. Therefore, the reaction directed at the West today is not just a reaction to Israeli policies; it is a reaction to the hollowing out of a broader civilizational claim. If this trend continues, the West’s greatest loss will not be military or economic. Its greatest loss will be the moral language that legitimizes it.

The Epstein files are the private face of this decay; the Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran line is its public face. One shows the darkness experienced in bedrooms, mansions, and closed circles; the other shows the impunity committed in front of screens, in full view of the world. What connects the two is not conspiracy fantasies; it is the privilege of those in power to suspend the law for their own benefit. The revelation that our perceptions of the Western world are not an accumulation of values but merely an illusion could render Western civilization unable to look in the mirror.

What is the ethical responsibility of scholars and academics in politically sensitive environments?

Throughout history, scholars, religious leaders, and intellectuals have faced a recurring dilemma: cooperate with political power and maintain influence, or remain independent and risk marginalization, persecution, or exile. This tension is not new. It appears repeatedly across different countries, eras, and political systems, from early Islamic history to modern authoritarian regimes.

A recent historical study on Sufi leaders in early Republican Turkey (1925–1950) provides a particularly illuminating example. Contrary to the widely held belief that religious leaders were systematically persecuted, the study demonstrates a more nuanced reality. Many Sufi leaders were not eliminated; instead, those who aligned with the state were integrated into the new political and institutional order. They became members of parliament, educators, bureaucrats, imams, and cultural figures. Only a relatively small minority faced imprisonment, exile, or execution. In other words, the state pursued selective repression and selective integration rather than blanket persecution (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-perspectives-on-turkey/article/sufi-leaders-in-the-early-turkish-republic-profession-privilege-and-persecution-19251950/0AE3FDB4C227E6448670BEF84C638514).

This pattern is not unique to early Republican Turkey. It reflects a broader political logic: states tend to suppress independent intellectual authority while rewarding those who lend legitimacy to power.

Today, similar dynamics can be observed worldwide. In Turkey, for instance, different religious and intellectual groups have experienced markedly different treatment. While some movements and scholars have faced imprisonment, investigations, or marginalization (such as the Hizmet movement, Alparslan Kuytul, and the network associated with Adnan Oktar, as well as the Academics for Peace signatories, dismissed Kurdish scholars and intellectuals, and independent civil society figures including Osman Kavala and Selahattin Demirtaş), others have been integrated into state institutions, protected, or even elevated (for example, figures associated with the Menzil community or pro-government religious scholars such as Hayrettin Karaman). This divergence suggests that political alignment, rather than ideological identity alone, often determines whether intellectual or religious figures are treated as partners or threats.

This phenomenon extends far beyond Turkey. Throughout history, independent scholars have frequently faced repression.

In Islamic intellectual history, Imam Abu Hanifa refused to serve under the Abbasid authorities and was imprisoned as a result. Ahmad ibn Hanbal endured imprisonment and flogging during the Mihna. Malik ibn Anas was punished for issuing legal opinions perceived as politically inconvenient. Said Nursi spent years in exile and prison. These figures became symbols of intellectual independence, but their independence came at significant personal cost.

Western intellectual history offers parallel examples. Galileo was tried by the Inquisition. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake. During the Soviet era, dissident intellectuals such as Andrei Sakharov and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn faced exile and imprisonment. In Nazi Germany, academics who resisted were dismissed, forced into exile, or persecuted, while those who aligned with the regime often advanced professionally.

These examples illustrate a recurring structural tension: political authority often seeks legitimacy from intellectuals, while independent intellectuals may challenge the narratives that power depends upon.

This raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: What is the ethical responsibility of scholars and academics in politically sensitive environments?

One approach is pragmatic cooperation. Scholars may work within institutions, believing that influence from inside is more effective than confrontation from outside. This strategy can allow continued research, teaching, and public engagement. However, it carries the risk of self-censorship and gradual loss of independence.

A second approach is strict independence. Scholars who adopt this stance prioritize intellectual integrity and critical inquiry, even at personal risk. While this approach preserves academic credibility, it often leads to marginalization, professional consequences, or exile.

A third approach, perhaps the most difficult but potentially most constructive, is critical engagement. This involves maintaining institutional cooperation while preserving intellectual independence, supporting policies when justified, criticizing them when necessary, and refusing to become instruments of political legitimacy.

Academic solidarity becomes particularly important in this context. Scholars who face repression often do so not because of methodological errors or academic weaknesses, but because their independence challenges dominant political narratives. Supporting these scholars is not merely an act of professional courtesy; it is a defense of academic freedom itself.

History suggests that intellectual independence is rarely comfortable. It often comes with uncertainty, professional risk, and personal sacrifice. Yet history also shows that societies benefit most from scholars who maintain intellectual integrity, even under pressure.

The tension between cooperation and independence will likely persist. Political systems change, but the dilemma remains. For academics and intellectuals, the central question is not whether this tension exists, but how to navigate it responsibly.

And ultimately, history tends to remember those who preserved their independence, even when the cost was high.

Every day, the world is becoming more unstable, fragile, and unpredictable. Wars, authoritarian processes, political repression, and economic crises profoundly affect not only societies but also universities and academic freedom.

Forcing an academic into exile is not only a career setback but also a loss of a nation’s scientific knowledge, educational capacity, and intellectual output. However, this loss often occurs silently. The voids created in university corridors, research laboratories, and classrooms are often not immediately noticeable.

Today, numerous academics in different parts of the world are forced to leave their countries due to war, political repression, or security concerns. From Ukraine to Gaza, from Sudan to Afghanistan, from Turkey to Russia, and now to Iran, academics in many regions are trying to rebuild their lives amidst uncertainty. Exile and migration do not always signify a new beginning. On the contrary, it often means the beginning of a long struggle marked with academic isolation, temporary contracts, language barriers, and financial difficulties… That’s why academic solidarity is vital.

Providing guidance to disadvantaged academics, creating scholarship opportunities, facilitating their access to academic networks, and supporting their adaptation to new academic environments are not only acts of individual support but also ways to protect scientific output. Every supported academic will contribute to the continuity of scientific thought.

While the need for support is increasing, the rise of anti-immigrant sentiment worldwide is making the process even more difficult. In many countries, academics face not only the hardships of exile but also xenophobia, bureaucratic obstacles, and academic insecurity. Therefore, academic solidarity is more critical than ever today.

Initiatives like Academic Solidarity do more than just support individual academics. Growing with your support, Academic Solidarity also contributes to protecting academic freedom, sustaining scientific output, and strengthening democratic societies.

Mentoring an academic, providing a scholarship, or opening the door to an academic network may seem like a small step. However, these steps will open the door for exiled academics to produce, to teach again, and to hope again.

As the world enters a more uncertain period, academic solidarity is no longer an option; it is a responsibility. While the number of people we support materially and morally increases every year, it is still just a drop in the ocean given the magnitude of the need. Therefore, we invite you to support Academic Solidarity and similar charitable movements. When academics cannot hold on and become alienated from society, not only individuals but also knowledge is lost.

Alzheimer’s disease has become one of the most significant health problems in aging populations. Beginning with memory loss and gradually leading to an inability to independently manage daily life, this disease profoundly affects not only individuals but also families and healthcare systems. Globally, approximately 55–60 million people currently live with dementia, with Alzheimer’s disease accounting for the vast majority of these cases. With increased life expectancy, this number is expected to double in the coming decades. Therefore, Alzheimer’s is considered not only a medical problem but also a global public health issue with social and economic dimensions (https://www.who.int/health-topics/dementia).

For many years, medications used in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease have primarily aimed at alleviating symptoms. Drugs such as donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine, and memantine can provide temporary cognitive improvements in some patients. In recent years, new drugs targeting amyloid protein accumulation have been developed, yielding some promising results. However, these treatments currently have limited effectiveness, and no approach can completely stop the disease (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12637128/). Therefore, the scientific community is focusing on new biological mechanisms that could prevent or slow the progression of Alzheimer’s disease. One of these research areas is the vagus nerve and its effects on brain health.

The vagus nerve is one of the longest nerves originating in the brain, connecting to many organs, including the heart, lungs, and digestive system. As a major component of the parasympathetic nervous system, the vagus nerve plays a crucial role in the body’s processes of rest, repair, and healing. Many processes, such as stress reduction, heart rate regulation, immune system control, and inflammation reduction, are associated with the vagus nerve. Recent research suggests that this nerve may also be linked to memory, learning, and cognitive functions.

New research indicates that vagus nerve stimulation could be a promising approach against Alzheimer’s disease and age-related memory loss. Research shows that the vagus nerve is connected to brain regions, particularly the hippocampus and learning networks, that are particularly associated with memory. Therefore, vagus nerve stimulation may support memory formation and improve cognitive performance. Experimental studies suggest that vagus nerve stimulation can facilitate learning and strengthen connections between nerve cells (https://theconversation.com/vagus-nerve-stimulation-shows-promise-as-a-way-to-counter-alzheimers-disease-and-age-related-memory-loss-269465).

One of the mechanisms playing a significant role in Alzheimer’s disease is brain inflammation. The vagus nerve has anti-inflammatory effects and can regulate the immune system. Therefore, it is thought that vagus nerve stimulation may protect brain cells by reducing chronic inflammation seen in Alzheimer’s disease. This could be an important protective mechanism not only for Alzheimer’s but also for age-related cognitive decline. Research also shows that vagus nerve stimulation can increase brain plasticity, thereby strengthening the brain’s capacity to form new connections. This can provide a significant advantage in terms of learning, memory, and cognitive flexibility (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11486617/).

One of the remarkable aspects of the vagus nerve is that it can be stimulated not only by medical devices but also by natural methods that can be applied in daily life. Sound production is one such method. Singing, humming, or making rhythmic sounds can have a stimulating effect on the vagus nerve. The vibrations generated by the vocal cords and throat muscles activate the parasympathetic system, producing a calming effect. This can affect not only mood but also, indirectly, cognitive functions (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031938425001738).

Similarly, yoga and meditation practices have also been associated with the vagus nerve. Slow, deep breathing, prolonged exhalation, and rhythmic sound production can increase vagal activity. Physiological changes that occur, particularly during meditation and breathing exercises, such as decreased heart rate and reduced stress hormones, are explained by vagus nerve activation (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3099099/).

Reading the Quran, dhikr, or similar rhythmic acts of worship are also considered interesting in this respect. The rhythmic sound production, prolonged reading, and regular breathing that occur during Quran recitation possess physiological characteristics that can stimulate the vagus nerve. Some studies show that listening to and reading the Quran can reduce stress and anxiety, regulate heart rhythm, and increase parasympathetic activity. These findings suggest that worship and rhythmic sound production may have neurophysiological effects (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10704108/).

Slow, deep breathing exercises are also considered an important method for activating the vagus nerve. In particular, slow inhalation and prolonged exhalation activate the parasympathetic system, leading to relaxation. In addition, research suggests that daily activities such as gargling, washing the face with cold water, social interaction, slow speech, and prayer can also increase vagal activity (https://health.clevelandclinic.org/vagus-nerve-reset).

While there is no definitive cure for Alzheimer’s disease, research into the vagus nerve and its natural stimulation is opening up a promising area. The idea that even seemingly simple activities like singing, praying, meditating, or breathing exercises can have positive effects on brain health creates a remarkable bridge between modern neuroscience and ancient human practices (https://www.vogue.com/article/vagus-nerve-stimulation).

Perhaps in the future, preventing Alzheimer’s disease and maintaining cognitive health will depend not only on medication but also on daily habits that promote breathing, sound, rhythm, and mental peace.

A personal experience recounted by an American student in Business Insider is actually a small but striking summary of a larger geopolitical transformation. The author states that university education in China is much cheaper than in the US, better prepares students for post-graduation life, and has increased visibility on campuses, particularly for African students. This observation alone is not proof; however, it offers a good starting point for understanding how China has become a new center of attraction in education today (https://www.businessinsider.com/american-studied-china-universities-cheaper-2026-3).

China’s rise in education is not simply about attracting more foreign students. The real issue is the large-scale, state-sponsored research capacity, the production power in engineering and science, and the ability to use this in coordination with foreign policy. According to official Chinese data, the country’s gross enrollment rate in higher education will be 60.8 percent in 2024. In the same year, the total number of students enrolled in regular and vocational higher education institutions will be 38.9 million. This shows that China is no longer just “a country with a large number of students”; it has become a system that has institutionalized the era of mass higher education (https://www.stats.gov.cn/english/PressRelease/202512/t20251231_1962224.html).

The picture is also striking in terms of quality. In Times Higher Education’s 2025 Asia rankings, China retained the top two spots and has five universities in the top 10 (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2025/regional-ranking). In the Nature Index 2025 data, China-based institutions also topped the list: the Chinese Academy of Sciences ranked first, followed by USTC, Zhejiang University, and Peking University (https://www.nature.com/nature-index/research-leaders/2025/institution/all/all/countries-China).  Furthermore, according to Georgetown CSET, Chinese universities are on track to produce over 77,000 STEM PhD graduates annually by 2025; in a similar comparison, the US remains at around 40,000. This difference demonstrates that university competition is no longer determined solely by prestige rankings, but also by the production of researchers and advanced technology human resources (https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/china-is-fast-outpacing-u-s-stem-phd-growth/).

However, to correctly understand China’s rise, a paradox must be seen. According to OECD data, China’s international student ratio in higher education remained low in 2023 at only 0.3%. This means that China is not yet a classic “international student hub” like the US, UK, or Australia. But the same data reveals another fact: China’s strength at this stage lies less in its massive foreign student ratio and more in the scale of its domestic system, its cost advantage, research efficiency, and its ability to establish targeted influence in specific regions. In other words, rather than building a campus economy that invites everyone, China is developing an education diplomacy that is effective in strategic areas (https://gpseducation.oecd.org/CountryProfile?primaryCountry=CHN&topic=EO&treshold=5).

One of the most prominent areas of this strategy is Africa. According to UNESCO, the number of African students studying in China reached approximately 70,000 in 2019. The 2024 FOCAC Beijing Action Plan sets out the goal of deepening China-Africa science and education cooperation, establishing regional vocational training centers, and strengthening educational platforms. According to information from the Chinese Ministry of Education at the end of 2025, approximately 9% of international students studying in China receive Chinese government scholarships, and about 60% of these recipients are postgraduate students. This suggests that Beijing is not only pursuing quantity but also trying to attract future elites, especially at the master’s and doctoral levels (https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000389878).

From the US perspective, the picture is more complex. America remains the world’s largest international student destination (https://www.iie.org/news/open-doors-2025-press-release/); according to Open Doors 2025 data, there were 1,177,766 international students in the US during the 2024/25 academic year. However, uncertainty grew during the same period. According to internal correspondence seen by Reuters, the Trump administration temporarily halted scheduling new student and exchange visa appointments in May 2025 (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-halts-scheduling-new-student-visa-appointments-2025-05-27/). Subsequently, in August 2025, the DHS published a draft rule that would eliminate the “duration of status” approach for student visas and switch to a fixed-term stay model. NAFSA reported a 17% drop in new international student enrollments in the fall of 2025, resulting in a $1.1 billion economic loss and approximately 23,000 job losses (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-halts-scheduling-new-student-visa-appointments-2025-05-27/). In short, the US system is still very strong, but it no longer seems as predictable as it once was.

Therefore, China’s rise is being accelerated more by the vacuum created by American uncertainty than by American decline. For a student, the choice of higher education is not solely about the quality of the diploma; visa security, the likelihood of staying after graduation, the cost of living, housing, the political atmosphere, and a sense of psychological belonging are just as important as academic reputation. The Business Insider narrative highlights China’s cheap dormitories, low food costs, and more direct career preparation. This model may not appeal to everyone; But it can be extremely attractive, especially for students who don’t want to be burdened by debt, are seeking education in technical fields, and want to stay close to Asian-African economic networks.

Europe, on the other hand, can be both a competitor and an intermediate winner in this race. The European Union has explicitly declared its goal of making itself the “world’s most attractive destination” for researchers and innovators by 2025 (https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/news/all-research-and-innovation-news/choose-europe-science-eu-comes-together-attract-top-research-talent-2025-05-23_en). The EU higher education strategy also aims for Europe to establish more competitive and outward-looking universities on a global scale. On the other hand, Europe is already a significant draw: according to EU data, France, Germany, and Spain account for 58.7% of total extra-EU degree mobility. In Germany, there were approximately 402,000 international students and doctoral students in the winter semester of 2024/25 (https://www.daad.de/en/press-releases/erneut-hohe-zahl-an-internationalen-studierenden-in-deutschland/). Therefore, the hardening of policies in the US and the rise of China do not automatically weaken Europe; on the contrary, they open up a new space for Europe. However, to utilize this space effectively, Europe needs to be more decisive regarding visas, housing, academic career security, and research funding.

The outcome the world can expect in the coming period is that education will become an even more geopolitical field. Universities are not only institutions that produce knowledge; they are centers that produce influence, technology, norms, and human capital. China grasped this fact very early on and began to support its economic network with education. A new sphere of influence is emerging, particularly in Africa, through scholarships, technical training, postgraduate programs, and Chinese-linked career networks. If the US tightens its doors and Europe moves slowly, the international education landscape of the 2030s could be significantly different from today. The question will then no longer be simply “where are the best universities?”; it will be “in which countries are the future global elites being educated and shaped by which worldview?” Therefore, China’s rise in education is a silent sign of a new world order.

The scientific world must not only produce new knowledge but also safeguard its reliability. All actors in the academic world must take responsibility for eliminating zombie articles and preventing their creation.

Scientific publishing has long existed as a self-correcting system. As was customary, erroneous results were criticized over time, corrected with new studies, and scientific knowledge gradually became more robust. Recent findings show that this ideal scenario is being seriously challenged. In particular, the rapid increase in the number of retracted scientific articles has raised concerns about trust and quality in the scientific community.

According to Retraction Watch (https://retractionwatch.com), an independent platform that systematically monitors scientific publications, the number of retracted articles has increased dramatically in recent years. Research shows that more than ten thousand scientific articles were retracted in 2023 (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8). This number is a record in the history of scientific publishing. Moreover, the increase in the number of retracted articles cannot be explained solely by the increase in the number of publications; the retraction rate itself is also rising (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10485848/).

These developments highlight a phenomenon that some researchers now call a “retraction crisis.” Retraction of a scientific article means that the article is no longer reliable and should not be used as a reference in the scientific literature. This decision is usually made in the following cases:

• Data fabrication or manipulation
• Plagiarism
• Ethical violations
• Fraudulent peer review
• Serious methodological errors

Unfortunately, retracted articles are not limited to studies published in small or low-impact journals. From time to time, even the world’s most prestigious scientific journals face such cases. For example, a case report recently published in The Lancet, which has been the subject of much debate for a long time, was re-examined. According to Retraction Watch, serious doubts have been raised about the reliability of a study concerning an infant who suffered opioid poisoning through breast milk (https://retractionwatch.com/2026/02/04/lancet-flags-long-scrutinized-report-of-infant-poisoned-by-opioids-in-breast-milk/).

One of the best-known cases in the history of science is Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 paper, which claimed that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine was linked to autism. Later retracted due to ethical violations and data manipulation, this study continued to be used for years as a key reference point for anti-vaccine movements.

Retractions are not limited to young researchers or small laboratories. Retraction Watch data reveal that studies by some Nobel Prize-winning scientists have also been retracted. This suggests that problems in the scientific system cannot be explained solely by individual ethical violations. Structural factors such as academic competition, publication pressure, and research funding profoundly affect scientific production processes.

One of the most interesting problems is that the impact of retracted articles doesn’t easily disappear. Even after being retracted, an article can continue to receive citations in the scientific literature (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0277814). Some retracted studies have been cited hundreds or thousands of times even after the retraction decision. In other words, these continue to live on as “zombie articles.”

It is estimated that the number of scientific articles published worldwide today has reached approximately fifty million. Tens of thousands of these have been retracted (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00455-y). The percentage may seem small at first glance. However, given the cumulative nature of scientific knowledge, this number can have a significant impact. When an article is retracted, it doesn’t simply mean that a single study was flawed. Research, meta-analyses, and clinical applications based on that article may also be indirectly affected.

When considering the root of the problem, the first thing that comes to mind is publication pressure (publish or perish). The fact that academic careers are largely dependent on the number of publications leads some researchers to produce a large number of articles quickly. The emergence of so-called “paper mills” in recent years has made this problem even more visible. These companies can produce fake or low-quality articles for a fee and submit them to scientific journals. In some cases, fake peer-review processes or organized citation networks are also involved (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/03/the-situation-has-become-appalling-fake-scientific-papers-push-research-credibility-to-crisis-point). On the other hand, the focus of some commercial publishers on increasing publication volume rather than quality also contributes to this problem.

Retracted articles are not just an academic issue. Incorrect scientific studies directly affect health policies, clinical practices, and public trust in science. Therefore, scientific trust is a common concern not only for academic circles but for the entire society.

A rethinking of research evaluation systems is necessary for a healthier academic environment. Making research data and analysis processes more transparent, expanding open data practices, and more effectively monitoring scientific publications are important steps in this direction. Furthermore, retracted articles should be clearly marked in databases, and researchers should be informed about this.

The scientific world today faces not only the task of generating new knowledge but also the responsibility of protecting the reliability of that knowledge. Eliminating “zombie articles” and preventing their creation places significant responsibilities on all actors in the academic world.

Does a state being oppressive give other states permission to wage war against it?

Does opposition to a regime require remaining silent while innocent people are bombed?

The war launched by the US and Israel against Iran is not merely a regional military conflict. In its first week, this war transformed into a global upheaval affecting the entire world through civilian deaths, forced displacement, energy crises, legal debates, and global instability. The war will impact not only the bombed territories but also laboratories, university budgets, research funding, transportation, and daily life. One of the first noticeable consequences in Europe was the rise in oil and energy prices. Goldman Sachs warned that if the disruption in the Strait of Hormuz continues, prices could rise above $100 (https://www.ft.com/content/d3e2c2a1-73aa-4952-b1f1-08c87042b507).

The fact that a state is oppressive does not give other states permission to wage war against it. As academics, we cannot view this situation solely from the perspective of geopolitical competition. Just as we opposed Russia’s attack on Ukraine, and just as we spoke out against the mass destruction and grave human rights violations in Gaza, we must evaluate the attack on Iran, carried out under the pretext of a “nuclear threat,” with the same ethical standards. Otherwise, the academy’s claim to universality collapses, and principles give way to camp loyalty. An intellectual discourse that remains silent when the perpetrator of an attack changes actually follows power, not law.

Some of the international reactions to this war are as follows: UN Secretary-General António Guterres said that the use of force by the US and Israel against Iran and the subsequent retaliations weaken international peace and security. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk also emphasized that bombs and missiles are not a way to resolve conflicts, and that civilians are once again paying the price (https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/global-reaction-israeli-us-attacks-iran-2026-02-28/).

The legal dimension of war is as important as its ethical dimension. According to a Reuters legal analysis, although the Trump administration defended the attacks on the grounds of “imminent threat,” these claims are not supported. Legal experts state that these attacks are seriously controversial under both international law and US domestic law (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/are-us-attacks-iran-legal-2026-03-04/). Another Reuters assessment notes that the attacks push the limits of the US president’s constitutional authority (https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-switch-are-attacks-iran-legal-2026-03-06/).

It is noteworthy that, as often happens, war first corrupts the language: expressions such as “preventive strike,” “regime change,” and “destruction for stability” aim to legitimize power beyond the law. Therefore, the task of academia should be to continue defending the language of truth against politics that empties concepts of meaning.

Spain has emerged as a remarkable exception in Europe in this regard. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez declared “no to war,” announcing that his country would not be complicit in this catastrophe. Sánchez called for an immediate de-escalation of tensions and full respect for international law. According to El País, Sánchez stated that violence is not the solution and that considering blind obedience as leadership is the real naivety. While more hesitant language is used in Europe, Spain’s open stance shows that principled foreign policy is still possible (https://english.elpais.com/international/2026-03-04/pedro-sanchez-on-the-us-and-israeli-attack-on-iran-no-to-war-we-will-not-support-this-disaster.html).

Spain is not alone in opposing the war. Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide stated that the attack was not in accordance with international law. The President of Ireland also called for diplomacy, describing the normalization of arbitrary occupation of sovereign states as a path to destruction (https://president.ie/en/media-library/news-releases/statement-by-president-connolly-following-strikes-on-iran). The Omani Foreign Minister stated that the negotiations mediated by his country had been sabotaged again, sending a message to Washington: “This is not your war.” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi found the US and Israeli attacks “unacceptable” and called for an immediate ceasefire. Brazil also said the attacks undermined the negotiation process and that dialogue was the only way to peace (https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/global-reaction-israeli-us-attacks-iran-2026-02-28/).

In contrast, the European Union’s common stance appears far more cautious and fragmented. While most EU countries call for “maximum restraint” and respect for international law, they also strongly condemn Iran’s attacks (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/eu-nations-call-maximum-restraint-respect-international-law-iran-conflict-2026-03-01/). This balanced crisis language reveals that states often speak not in terms of principles but in terms of alliances and cost calculations. Therefore, the voice of universities, researchers, and intellectuals becomes more valuable. Where states remain silent or hesitant, academia must establish a moral language that does not change according to nationality in the face of human life.

The impact of war on academia is both direct and indirect. The surge in energy prices will put pressure on transportation and logistics costs, the security of academic conferences, international student mobility, scholarship programs, and the funding of research infrastructure. The disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz and their economic consequences are not merely economic data for scientists, but a sign of how war paralyzes the knowledge-producing ecosystem. Universities do not remain neutral islands when war breaks out; they either succumb to pressure or stand on the side of truth and human life.

Here, it is necessary to recall the concept of “academic responsibility.” The academic’s duty is not only to produce data, but also to protect public opinion. To remain silent in the face of a language that reduces bombed cities to maps, deaths to statistics, and displacement to “security outcomes” is to sacrifice academic ethics for political comfort. Especially in times of war, universities risk becoming propaganda tools. Yet history has bequeathed to us the legacy of intellectuals who paid the price for injustice.

Throughout history, numerous academics, students, and intellectuals have stood against oppression at the cost of their lives. Sophie Scholl and the students around the White Rose at the University of Munich were executed in 1943 for distributing leaflets against Nazi crimes. Janusz Korczak, an educator and child rights advocate, refused to abandon his orphans in the Warsaw Ghetto and was sent to Treblinka with them and killed. In El Salvador, philosopher and university rector Ignacio Ellacuría was murdered for criticizing state violence and human rights violations. These examples show that the true honor of academia lies not in career but in the courage to speak the truth in the face of power (https://www.britannica.com/topic/White-Rose).

This is what is needed today regarding Iran. Legitimate criticism of the Iranian regime cannot be used to legitimize external aggression. A state’s oppression does not give other states a license to wage war against it. Similarly, opposition to a regime does not require remaining silent while its cities are bombed. Academic consistency requires both opposition to authoritarian regimes and rejection of external aggression. Human rights are not merely a discourse used against rival blocs.

Following the attacks on Iran, universities and academic networks are facing the consequences of a new era of war. Academic solidarity must stand firm on principles, regardless of nationality or bloc: the lives of civilians are superior to geopolitical calculations; war is the language of power, not truth; universities must not surrender to this language. We must use the same moral language for Iran today that we used when Russia attacked Ukraine, when Gaza was destroyed, and when sovereignty violations occurred in other regions. Because if the conscience of academia becomes selective, it ceases to be a conscience. What is needed today is not to side with the powerful, but to insist on the side of law, peace, and human life.

Today, nutrition is often reduced to calorie counting, macronutrient distributions, and popular diet trends. However, fasting, a practice thousands of years old, makes us reconsider a more fundamental question: What truly nourishes us?

Fasting shows remarkable continuity across different geographies and religious traditions. Ramadan in Islam, Lent in Christianity, Yom Kippur in Judaism… Is the emergence of a similar practice in so many different cultures a coincidence, or does it point to a deeper truth about human nature? The answer to this question lies at the intersection of biology and the world of meaning.

Biologically, the human body is far more dynamic than we think. Within weeks, 70-90% of the atoms that make up our bodies are renewed. In this sense, humans are more like a constantly flowing river than a static structure. What we call “us” today was not long ago a part of plants, animals, or the air. What we eat transforms us. But perhaps an equally important truth is that what we don’t eat also shapes us. The 19th-century philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach said, “Man is what he eats.” Perhaps today it’s time to expand on this statement: Man is shaped not only by what he eats, but also by what he consciously chooses not to eat.

The words of the Prophet Muhammad are noteworthy in this context: “The son of Adam has never filled a vessel worse than his stomach.” This statement is not only about nutrition; it contains a powerful message about moderation, self-control, and consumption ethics. In this sense, fasting is not just about going hungry. Fasting is the practice of creating distance between desires and actions. Postponing immediate desires allows the individual to reposition themselves both physically and mentally. This process can provide not only metabolic flexibility but also psychological and moral discipline.

Fasting leads to well-organized metabolic changes in the body. After approximately 12–16 hours of fasting, the organism switches from glucose utilization to fat burning. Glycogen stores in the liver are depleted, insulin levels decrease, and fatty acids are mobilized. During this process, ketone bodies are produced in the liver. Thus, fat is burned, providing an alternative energy source for the brain.

Beyond its effects on energy metabolism, fasting is thought to have cellular effects. The most debated of these is autophagy. Autophagy is an “internal cleaning” mechanism in which the cell breaks down and recycles damaged structures. This mechanism has been strongly demonstrated, particularly in animal experiments (https://livehelfi.com/blogs/all/discover-the-benefits-of-autophagy).

Clinical studies suggest that intermittent fasting, particularly Ramadan-type fasting, may improve some metabolic markers. A systematic review by Faris et al. shows that fasting may be associated with increased insulin sensitivity, decreased inflammatory markers, and an average decrease of 3–5 mmHg in systolic blood pressure (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31581955/). Similarly, a meta-analysis by Sadeghirad et al. reports an average weight loss of 1–2 kilograms during Ramadan (although this effect is often temporary) (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23182306/).

However, these findings have a significant limitation: Fasting does not automatically lead to a healthy outcome. Dietary habits during non-fasting hours are crucial. Factors such as excessive calorie intake, high sugar consumption, and irregular sleep can negate or even reverse the potential benefits of fasting. Furthermore, fasting is not suitable for everyone. For diabetics, individuals with eating disorders, pregnant women, and those with certain chronic illnesses, fasting can pose serious health risks. Therefore, any assessment of fasting should include its limitations and risks as well as its benefits.

However, evaluating fasting solely on its physiological effects would overlook the true depth of this practice. Ultimately, believers fast not for the benefits it provides, but because of their faith. From a religious perspective, fasting is not only an act of worship but also part of a way of life. Humans are incredibly complex beings. Even the simplest machines have instruction manuals, so how reasonable is it to leave humans completely without guidance? From this point of view, we can say that prophets were not only spiritual guides but also bearers of a system for the practical aspects of life.

Fasting can become even more meaningful, especially for displaced individuals, those adapting to different countries, or those facing academic pressures. It can provide a sense of continuity, order, and control amidst feelings of fragmentation. When practiced correctly and consciously, it is neither merely a religious ritual nor simply a biological intervention. It bridges the gap between these two realms. Fasting invites us to consider the individual as both a biological organism and a being searching for meaning.