Akademikerin: ‚Forschung kann nicht getrennt von Gesellschaft gesehen werden’[en] 

Um eine gekürzte Version des Interviews zu lesen, bitte klicken Sie bitte hier.

Why do we need to communicate science?

Very simply, there's no question about that. It is written in every texbook on science communication or science writing: science is communication. Unless it is communicated, science does not exist. That's what I tell PhD students. It is of no use doing experiments if you don't communicate what you have been looking for, formulate your questions and clearly state the interest and impact of what you've found. 

We must also make very clear what we mean by science and by research. Saying that science is communication, you need to know that validation of knowledge is a crucial stage. A researcher may have done a lot of work, but unless the results are published and validated, they won't become science and scientific knowledge.

If the results are only published in a scientific paper, is that communication?

Scientists and researchers have a very narrow definition of the word 'published'; in a dictionary the word 'published' means "made public". The problem is that the scientific system has always thought of itself as being outside society and hence has restricted the meaning of publishing to validation. Research is published in scientific papers and that's it. 

This is the first obstacle – to make scientists understand that the validation process is crucial but not self-sufficient when we talk about communication. 

Researchers are actually in a situation of non-communication. I don't think that publishing is communication. I try to tell researchers that it is not worth publishing if they don't have anything to say. The problem is that very often when papers are published there's no message in them: you just need to look at the titles of papers to see that. 

Is all research conducted relevant?

Researchers live in a system that has so far been completely autonomous and cut off from society. As described in Merton's Sociology of Research (1976), the scientific system is a system which is autonomous, self-regulated and unaccountable to society. This is why so many researchers have difficulties explaining the impact of their research. 

Can we then say that science is leading its own agenda, even though it is an integral part of all policies?

Because researchers are in a situation of non-communication, they don't see themselves as part of the real world. Communicating science to the general public and communicating with citizens has become, however, essential because the issue is to educate autonomous, reflective citizens and also change their habits. Take for example climate change - journalists need not only to report about climate change but also bring people to ask themselves questions about the climate, pollution and consumption, etc. If you just communicate facts, people will say they are not concerned. You need to get people involved in the communication process so that they can participate and act in the process of change. 

How can you do that?

We have to involve people in the process of producing knowledge. Otherwise we will remain in a selfish attitude that is not conducive to change. It is of no use splashing threatening titles in newspapers. It is also a question of sustainable development. Research cannot be separate from society anymore. We need to involve people in the core process in order to achieve some change. That is also why we are now talking about communication as a two-way process and not only information. 

Why do you think that the European Commission is interested in communicating science?

It is not always very clear. They have different messages. They are trying to incite researchers to be better communicators and I think it is a way of pushing researchers to do better research. 

In fact, we can make the equation: researchers are poor communicators because they are poor researchers. At least, I make this equation since I have found that a lot of research is just technical and published papers very often lack a well-formulated scientific problem and a clear question. 

Should the role of public information officers be enforced as a "bridge" between scientists and society to communicate science?

This is what the changing paradigm in communicating science is about. It is a cultural revolution where end-users and other stakeholders need to be involved in the process. We need human bridges - journalists, and communications and press officers. But eventually these bridges will have to be removed! Research and science culture can no longer exist outside mainstream culture and society. The threats to the planet and human life are now much too big. We need a revolution in science culture. 

We can't afford to have two separate cultures, as described by British author CP Snow in his essay entitled The Two Cultures. This is why we have had this huge gap between the social "soft" sciences and "hard" sciences like physics. And the gap has been reinforced, for example, by the educational system – which has separated mathematics and philosophy; or students strong in literature from those strong in mathematics, for example. 

We need to bring the two cultures together. And for researchers, this is quite a revolution. This is also why I am so anxious to see something happen. Today a majority of young researchers are still trained in Mode I culture, which is becoming obsolete. 

We also need to understand that there are lot of professions living off the separation of science and society and they will be reluctant to welcome any change.

So you think that scientists can communicate directly to the public?

Yes. They have to engage in a dialogue with society. 

For example, one of the weaknesses of research projects funded by the NIH or the European Commission is the section entitled "impact of your research". Researchers are not really aware of the impact of their research. They are just trying to use society as an alibi to get some funding for their work. 

What can be done to tackle this problem?

Researchers need to work with citizens to understand their concerns to formulate new problems and questions. 

Who decides currently what science is funded in the university laboratories?

The university scientific management. 

So shouldn't this issue be raised at this level first?

Researchers are not really manageable. There is a saying that "trying to manage researchers is like herding cats". Researchers often work with key words and don't really try to see the big picture in terms of the relevance of their research subject. 

Research has become terribly technical with new technology and it is very method- and technique-orientated. Researchers don't spend enough time formulating questions or reformulating problems. This is why we need researchers to be involved in society and citizens involved in the research process because problems need to be reformulated. 

Scientists live in a certain paradigm in which they are comfortable and which they don't want to leave. 

What is your message to researchers?

Please, formulate questions, not on your own but in a participatory process with society and accept that citizens can understand what you are doing and can help you formulate new questions which address complex issues.