The PubMed Trap: Germany's Dangerous Data Poker in Medicine
The government promises digital sovereignty and provides millions, but behind the scenes, a dispute rages over securing important research data.
(Image: mkfilm/Shutterstock.com)
The shock in March 2025 ran deep: When PubMed, the world's largest medical literature database, went completely offline for a day, German science was suddenly made aware of how precariously it stands. The days of blindly relying on the provision of vital research data from the USA are over under the Trump administration. The federal government has recognized the danger – at least officially. With an immediate budget of around 30 million euros, it aims to secure endangered research data holdings and strengthen European data sovereignty. However, anyone who believes this money will flow directly into building independent alternatives is mistaken.
The executive appears deliberately calm towards parliament. It refers to the German Research Foundation (DFG), which awards the funds through a science-led process. The lead research ministry emphasizes that there have been no permanent significant restrictions so far. The government is relying on mirror services of the German National Library of Medicine (ZB MED) as a lifeline. But this is precisely where the rift between political rhetoric and scientific reality begins.
ZB MED, intended as a central pillar of German information infrastructure, paints a much bleaker picture of the situation. The warning signs from overseas are systemic: the US government plans to cut the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) by a massive 40 percent. At the same time, scientific content is being deleted on a large scale from government websites, and access to databases is being blocked for researchers from certain countries. Even PubMed's quality assurance is faltering after an important expert committee for journal selection was summarily dissolved.
Videos by heise
ZB MED Project Proposals Rejected
ZB MED is particularly dismayed that its efforts towards genuine European independence have so far been in vain. A ZB MED spokesperson regretted to heise online that, according to the current status, the central library would not participate in the federal government's investments. With the project Open Life Science Publication Database (OLSPub), the institution aims to create an open, reliable, and sustainable European alternative to PubMed. However, two project proposals have already been rejected.
"We are currently desperately looking for new funding opportunities and are planning a fundraising campaign, among other things," explained the spokesperson. There are also misunderstandings regarding replacement options for PubMed. The federal government refers here to Europe PMC and the ZB MED search portal Livivo. However, these two databases only use the data that PubMed currently still provides. Should this source fail, the alternatives could at best fall back on the old data stock. Thus, there is no data security. OLSPub, on the other hand, is intended to collect the metadata itself and thus create redundancy.
The DFG's previous rejection of projects like OLSPub seems almost paradoxical in this context. The reviewers demanded closer cooperation with the US National Library of Medicine (NLM) – precisely the institution from whose politically unpredictable leadership one actually wants to emancipate oneself. It is a classic Catch-22 situation: German digital policy aims to be sovereign but makes cooperation with the potential risk of failure a condition for funding.
An Expensive Band-Aid on an Open Wound
ZB MED also regrets that it is simultaneously facing cuts in institutional funding. This, it argues, is a contradiction that calls the long-term strategy into question. The institution receives support from the German Library Association (dbv). For its chairwoman, Antje Theise, the current political situation makes it clear how fragile access to data has become. Libraries, as public-benefit institutions, are a supporting foundation for research security and should not be sacrificed to market laws or short-term budget cuts.
One thing is clear: without a functioning, independent system for capturing current medical publications, German research and industry face the risk of flying blind in a serious scenario. The federal government's 30 million euros could thus end up being just an expensive band-aid on a wound that actually required open-heart surgery on the infrastructure.
(dahe)
