science communication in times of blurring boundaries
TRANSCRIPT
Science communication in times of blurring boundaries
Impulses from the third meeting on the future of science communication Siggen Estate, July 14 to 18, 2015 Sponsored by the ZEIT Verlag and the Alfred Toepfer Foundation
1
The Siggen Circle
During its meeting in July 2015, the Siggen Circle examined the
change observed in the relationships between science and other
systems. It has detected an increasing blurring of boundaries that
poses new challenges for science communication. By this, we mean
shifts or even the disappearance of formerly established boundaries
between science and other systems (politics, media, the public etc.)
and the reduction of limitations, for example in terms of reach,
access and influence.
One purpose of science communication is to support science in
addressing these changes. New strategies and explanatory or
narrative models need to be developed, as traditional instruments
will no longer serve in every case. The goal is to strengthen science
and shape the dialogue between it and other systems. To do so,
science communication fosters acceptance of the nature of science
and the requirements inherent to it.
During the course of the meeting, the following thematic areas were
discussed in detail:
Science communication and competing hypotheses
Science communication and politics
Science communication and participation
Internationalisation
Science communication and new stakeholders
With a view to competing hypotheses (such as esotericism and conspiracy
theories), we find it necessary to take a stand for science, to make it
accessible to non‐experts, and to find meaningful stories and narrate them in
order to illustrate the significance of science in our society. At the same time,
we see that such narrative approaches have up to now been foreign to
science, and with good reason. Still, we believe it is necessary to develop such
narrative approaches with and for science, to keep it present in our society.
2
Political decisions today are increasingly made in arenas in which scientists
are present. This changes the scientist’s role from neutral observer to active
advisor. Communication within the arena of political decision‐making
processes follows rules that are different from those established in scientific
discourse. These new roles also imply new risks, as they may endanger the
independence and credibility of the scientists involved. At the same time, they
offer the opportunity to introduce scientific findings into public discussion and
to contribute to solving society’s issues.
Citizen science is more than the contribution of data to scientific projects by
interested, trained amateurs. It encompasses their claim to a say in research
topics and, if possible, to shaping research throughout the entire research
process. As the most significant sponsors of science, citizens want to be taken
seriously. This is a prerequisite for them to continue placing their trust in
science, its methods of gaining knowledge and its quality standards.
In times of blurring boundaries, we believe it is important – in addition to
positioning our own brands – to strengthen science as a whole. This calls for
trans‐institutional thinking and action. Science is trans‐institutional and
international by nature, and so are most of its tasks and challenges. It follows
that science communication too, with its growing number of topics, can only
be successful when acting internationally. When it comes to fundamental
issues, we want to reach the European and the international public. Tried and
tested standards of professionalization and ethics must be upheld in science
communication. We welcome international exchanges and want to initiate
mutual learning processes and an exchange of best practices with other
countries.
Science communication sees itself as a point of contact for new stakeholders
in the scientific avant‐garde, outside established institutions. It fosters
dialogue and negotiations to invite external science practitioners and the
established scientific system to open up towards one another. At the same
time, it must raise awareness of the ethical and legal framework and of
established self‐regulation mechanisms of scientific processes.
The Siggen Circle is not a scientific
body. Most of us are practitioners of
science communication who take
advantage of the meetings in Siggen
3
to discuss and investigate hypotheses and arguments about the future of
science communication. The results are not obtained using scientific methods
and cannot meet the requirements of a systematic search for evidence. In
most cases there are no relevant scientific studies in our topic areas. We
realise that the theses in this paper are provisional, fragmented and not
always free of contradictions. The following impulses are the results of
individual working groups and are presented in no particular order.
We see them as an invitation to discussion and will gladly receive any
amendments, constructive criticism or scientific evaluations.
We would like to sincerely thank the ZEIT Verlag and the Alfred Toepfer
Foundation, as well as the fabulous team at the Siggen Estate for supporting
our meeting.
4
Science communication and its narrative patterns
In a world where boundaries are increasingly permeable, shifting or newly
formed, science is opening up as well: the contact points and interfaces
between science and other fields of practice in society, such as economics,
politics, art, culture and religion, are becoming more numerous, the
interrelations more diverse. This growing openness of science provides a
clearer view of its idiosyncrasies and functional logic for the outside observer.
Scientific findings are subject to continuous interpretation and evaluation by
the scientists themselves. The ambiguity of scientific insight is perceived more
clearly in an environment that is becoming more and more strongly imbued
with science. However, in a complex world, many people expect science to
deliver guaranteed knowledge and guidance. The result can be insecurity: for
people without a scientific education, the provisional nature of scientific
findings is often interpreted as uncertainty.
Due to this discrepancy, science loses people’s trust and is in danger of losing
its authority to interpret certain scientific topics and methods. At the same
time, non‐scientific models of explaining the world are gaining in importance.
This includes models that contradict science, such as fundamentalist religious
movements, belief in miracles, and conspiracy theories. Especially in these
times of digitalisation, these models represent a challenge for science
communication.
Shifting boundaries have their positive sides too though, and may open up
new avenues in science and science communication: contact and exchanges
with domains of practice outside science may lead to new questions and
impulses for science. The consequences of scientific insight may become more
and more noticeable in people’s everyday lives. Science is becoming more
accessible.
This could lead to a society that is open to and appreciative of science, a
society in which:
science offers opportunities for identification;
5
scientists are seen as pioneers and role models that form an appealing
avant‐garde;
science creates new freedom for itself and with it greater potential
impact for the betterment of society.
We think it is outdated to fight with other research institutions over the best
headlines that claim the prospect of solving one of the “great challenges” of
mankind, while realistically only small steps towards partial solutions can be
expected in the foreseeable future. We consider it important to inform the
public about opportunities and risks as well as about controversies (for
example in the fields of energy supply, medical research, climate change,
genetic engineering, nanotechnology and animal testing).
Science communication can use this potential as the basis for a more open
approach that is no longer motivated solely by competitive advantages and
messages of success. Together with science, science communication creates
new, meaningful narrative patterns. It moderates and designs new interfaces
and border areas, establishes references and builds bridges between people’s
everyday lives and expectations, and science. It puts the focus on the scientific
process, the quest for knowledge, and the people engaged in science. Science
communication develops new formats that anchor the cultural achievement
of “science” and its enlightening power even more firmly in our society. In this
way, science will become visible as a shaper – and an essential part of society.
6
Science communication and politics
Science and politics are drifting closer together, and the boundaries between
systems are blurring. Science has long served as a consulting body for politics.
As ever more political decisions are being made within complex societal and
technological contexts, scientists are increasingly being included in those
processes (democracy of experts), even outside established science‐based
political consulting by academies and the German Council of Economic Experts
or the German Ethics Council. In addition, more and more scientific studies are
being used as a basis for decisions at every political level, or at least as a
reference for political debate.
This development offers a chance for active contribution, the possibility of
introducing scientific findings into the political decision‐making process and
thus contributing to solving society’s issues. The involvement of science in
political decision‐making processes and its influence offers science the
opportunity to demonstrate its usefulness to society by finding answers to
complex unsolved questions or by suggesting new courses of action.
A good relationship with the political world is also important for science as
politics determines its framework in the form of funding allocations and
legislation. With regards to these frameworks, science has always been active
in the political sphere.
However, this development carries with it the risk that science is increasingly
being seen as more of a political player and less as a neutral, independent
authority. The risk that science could be taken over by politics, for example
through joint PR campaigns with political agents, is just as real as the danger
of it being downgraded to the status of legitimiser or even scapegoat if a
decision proves to be the wrong one.
If science should fail to fulfil its ever increasing advisory tasks, others (who are
already in competition for politicians’ attention and trust) will step in to fill the
gap, such as political foundations, think tanks and non‐governmental
organisations.
7
Consequences and questions for science communication:
Science communication provides a translation aid: politicians require
simple, condensed expertise. It is one of the core competencies of
science communication to break down complex matters accurately. In
this, it can be of tremendous help to science.
Science communicators must understand and master the language
and the rules of politics to prepare science for communication in the
political sphere (e.g. timing of topics, agenda setting, emotionalisation
and relationship management). Not only do they translate scientific
language and actions into political speech and actions, but they also
help to explain the language and mechanisms of the political world to
science and scientific management. They should have the freedom to
choose whether or not to make use of the tools of political
communication.
Science communication shapes the public image of scientists and
science: it conveys the scope and the limits of what science can
achieve and advocates for the acceptance of ambiguity and
provisional results.
In order to preserve the credibility of science, it is becoming ever
more necessary to clearly distinguish between opinions and
established findings.
Science communication protects and supports the reputation of
science: it supports scientists in exposing charlatans (para‐ and
pseudoscientists) and it differentiates between science and para‐ or
pseudoscience. It recognises that science itself is subject to processes
and dynamics that may seem unstraightforward and which may be a
cause for concern even among experts.
8
Science communication and participation
Politics and society call on the public to get involved in as many areas as
possible. This results in diverse dialogue activities with different goals. Science
and research are expected to be a part of this trend. More and more clearly,
civil society itself is demanding a voice.
As explained in the Siggen Call for Action, this development marks a major
change and an expansion of the roles and tasks of science communicators.
Dialogue‐oriented science communication has been the subject of various
debates and theoretical considerations. From a practical point of view,
however, this realisation and vision has not affected our everyday work to
date. Scientific institutions and communicators have not yet substantially
increased their dialogue activities.
One exception is the active involvement of private individuals in research
processes under the banner of citizen science. The number of such projects is
on the rise, and the community is working on a joint understanding and
strategy for citizen science.
There have been controversial debates about a general culture of
participation in science. The well‐considered, useful and serious application of
“crowd” tools can counteract a potential polarisation of attitudes. In this
regard too, international research results provide a helpful foundation for
science communication.
As the interface managers between science and the public, science
communicators have the task of mediating between the (sometimes
exaggerated) demands of the public and the (sometimes justified) concerns of
scientific institutions, working towards constructive cooperation.
It is also their responsibility to test and evaluate the practical implementation
of dialogue activities (perhaps very gradually to begin with) and to collect
empirical data. Such practical experience should then be included in future
debates about the politics and philosophy of science.
9
Our vision for the future
Dialogue
Controversial topics are identified at an early stage and at the
appropriate level (global, national and local), and are then discussed
with the general public. The possibilities and the limits of this dialogue
are clearly defined from the start.
Citizen science
People who are generally interested in citizen science (up to 30% of the
German population according to the Wissenschaft im Dialog science
barometer 2014) can choose from a considerable range of opportunities for
participating in research projects.
New boundaries?
As science opens up towards the public, the boundaries between scientists
and citizens will not disappear completely; in most cases, they will only shift to
some extent. Despite all the efforts of science communication, in the end
knowledge will always remain unevenly distributed. The dividing line lies
between the well‐educated and the less educated social classes. Therefore,
science communicators also need to develop and implement suitable projects
for target groups that are difficult to reach.
10
Science communication and internationalisation
In Germany, as in other parts of the world, the internationalisation of science
has long been a reality. It is therefore remarkable that the activities of science
communication still happen mainly within national borders.
We want to broaden our view and seize the opportunities that
internationalisation has to offer for science communication. Tried and tested
ethical and professional standards must of course be upheld and, if necessary,
defended.
Internationalisation requires significant effort on the part of organisations and
communicators. Increasing complexity carries with it a greater risk of
misunderstandings. Here too, honesty about the current status of our
expertise is needed. Courage and resources are required to strengthen
linguistic, cultural and strategic competencies.
Not only is science international but the symptoms of blurring boundaries and
loss of trust are evident in many countries.
We therefore want to work towards direct dialogue between science
communicators from different countries for the creation and expansion of
international platforms for science communication that enable the exchange
of best practices between countries.
11
New stakeholders and research structures
How do the stakeholders change during times of blurring boundaries in the
production of knowledge? We can already see that the processes for
generating new knowledge will accelerate rapidly, including outside the
established structure of science. Visible manifestations of such research
processes outside traditional borders are garage inventors, hackerspaces and
the DIY movement, in which people without a clear academic affiliation
produce new, “wild” knowledge. We also see a large number of
entrepreneurs, independent inventors and discoverers pursuing their own
visions and projects proudly outside established institutions and their
boundaries in order to evoke or provoke radical upheavals. Research
laboratories that elude national or international observation and regulation
are by no means science fiction.
All these new knowledge producers question the established system of
knowledge production and its authority of interpretation. The traditional
structures of science need to find a way to contend with these new
stakeholders who do not necessarily (want to) follow the established ethical
and legal rules. Society’s system of knowledge, which has been developed
over the course of centuries, essentially has two ways in which it can respond
to this challenge: either inclusion or an attempt to exclude new forms of
knowledge and largely unknown agents. Inclusion will mean integrating the
impulses and results of new knowledge generators into existing networks. This
can strengthen the productivity of scientific institutions and, through
cooperation, new knowledge can take effect more quickly and trigger
disruptive technology cycles. At the same time, the strategy of inclusion also
offers an opportunity to limit unwanted actions and regulate illegitimate
agents.
Even knowledge cultures that are generally open must continually draw lines
in the sand and negotiate the shifting of boundaries with society. The
exclusion of unwanted knowledge can protect societies from extremists, but
the exclusion of relevant knowledge bases can also obscure courses of action
that might be useful. In this dynamic, ambiguous and intricate situation,
science communication faces tremendous trans‐institutional challenges. It can
serve as a decision‐making aid for responding to unfamiliar agents and
possible courses of action. It can also pool the competencies of experts from
12
various disciplines, to detect and present new kinds of knowledge sources and
the status of findings, evaluate them and feed them into discourses.
In the future, scientific progress will enable individuals to attack the system‐
relevant structures of modern states and leverage security measures – for
example with synthetic biological weapons, a refined use of powerful
algorithms or the release of autonomous agents. One might also imagine
stateless terror cells, sects and deranged persons who, alone or in small
groups, want to initiate existential risks and could, with little technical effort,
produce biological weapons with pandemic potential whose destructive effect
could be comparable to atomic bombs with built‐in reproductive capabilities.
There could also be individual inventors who exert influence in a positive way.
The fundamental question is how humankind can and wants to regulate
collective technologies when local actions have global effects.
For the first time in the history of our species, humankind is able to
undermine its own basis of existence on this planet through the collective use
of resources. Many scientists have described that, through the effects of the
combustion of fossil fuels on our climate, the current generation is deciding
about the future basis of life for our entire civilization. In view of the rapid
overheating of our planet, Earth itself is turning into a powerful agent with the
potential to change our lives dramatically.
Thus far, no global governance structures or effective sets of rules have been
put in place to identify and prevent extreme polycentric risks. It will fall to the
science communication of tomorrow to deal with the challenging task of
conveying substantiated predictions about possible futures and plausible risk
scenarios.
13
Participants
Andreas Archut University of Bonn
Stefan Bernhard Research Institute of Molecular Pathology
Roland Fischer Freelance science journalist
Bernd Halling Bayer AG
Christian Herbst German Federal Ministry of Education and Research
Elisabeth Hoffmann Technische Universität Braunschweig
Christoph Koch Journalist
André Lampe Scientific communicator
Monika Landgraf Kalsruhe Institute of Technology
Alexandra Lion ZEIT Verlag
Ulrich Marsch Technische Universität München
Susann Morgner con gressa GmbH
Franka Ostertag DLR project sponsor/ science years office
Jutta Rateike Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)
Hannes Schlender ScienceRelations
Philipp Schrögel Büro für Wissenschafts‐ und Technikkommunikation
Volker Stollorz Journalist, Science Media Center
Paul Stoop Berlin Social Science Center
Oliver Tacke Technische Universität Braunschweig
Julia Wandt University of Konstanz, German Association for Higher Education Communication
Bernhard Weingartner TU Wien
Markus Weißkopf Wissenschaft im Dialog (Science in Dialogue, WiD)
Caroline Wichmann Leopoldina
Thorsten Witt Wissenschaft im Dialog (Science in Dialogue, WiD)
Layout: Maren Grüber (Wissenschaft im Dialog) Photos: Christoph Koch, Elisabeth Hoffmann