Federal Research Minister Anja Karliczek wants to help science explain research results to a broader public. “If we want society to be able to understand climate policy decisions, it must be able to participate in the progress made in knowledge,” says the CDU politician. She is not afraid that the communication between scientists could then put politics under too much pressure. “I am very grateful that scientists are committed to a committed climate protection policy.”
ntv.de: Your ministry supports the development of strategies for science communication, you have one Policy paper on the topic, which states that the BMBF sees itself “as an enabler and driver of social discourse and the transfer of research findings to society”. What is the aim of these initiatives?
Anja Karliczek: During the Corona crisis we saw how much science can offer people orientation. She was an anchor to society. That’s a really good development. Right from the start, as Federal Research Minister, it was very important to me that science and society enter into even more dialogue. If only because technological development is getting faster and faster, the need to deal with it is also becoming more and more urgent. This also applies to climate change. If we want society to be able to understand climate policy decisions, it must be able to participate in the advances in knowledge.
Science should explain political decisions?
No, politicians have to do that themselves. Science advises – politics decides. But science can explain the background and thus make the decision-making processes easier to understand. I’m still interested in something different. Many people say: It can’t really get any better than it is today. But if we look at what is being researched today, we know that a lot can still get much better – in medicine, through new technologies, through a positive change in the world of work. So we have reason to be optimistic about the future. That is also important for a society. And scientists can contribute to this by exchanging ideas about what and how they are working and letting people share in the knowledge gained.
Isn’t it problematic when political actors – in this case your ministry – interfere in science communication?
As a ministry, we are first and foremost sponsors of science. A large part of the German scientific landscape is paid for by taxpayers’ money, the BMBF alone is spending almost 21 billion euros this year. That is a sum that he too needs to be explained. That is not the only reason why I think it is important for scientists to take part in an exchange. However, we have no influence whatsoever. The FactoryWisskomm, …
… which is due to present its results next Wednesday, June 23rd, …
… is a forum that we initiated, but in which we do not interfere. Over the past few months, 150 experts in science communication have discussed science communication at FactoryWisskomm. One thing is clear: communication between science and society must come out of science itself and be organized. But of course it is also important to us that science communication becomes a natural part of scientific work and even contributes to the reputation of scientists. That was not the case in the past – and it is still the exception today. Antje Boetius, the director of the Alfred Wegener Institute, once said that in the past, with a view to scientific reputation, it was downright a hindrance when a scientist sat on a talk show and tried to explain cognitive processes in an understandable way. I believe that researchers should get involved in a democracy and get involved in debates. Science communication is also a contribution against fake news and conspiracy theories. Many scientists now see it the same way.
What were the topics in the FactoryWisskomm?
There were also very practical questions. For example: How and when is the best way to teach scientists how communication works in our media landscape? During the pandemic, we saw that social media in particular can get you into difficult waters. And every scientist has to be able to deal with that first. But the future of science journalism was also an issue, because journalists naturally also have a very central role in communicating about science.
In May, the physicist Viola Priesemann wrote in “Spiegel” saidPublic relations cost time, and they need it for their research. “Otherwise there are no new results. I don’t want to tell the same thing over and over again.” You could also hear from other scientists that communication with the media and the public is exhausting – some of them even ran regular campaigns. Can you understand why researchers don’t want to do this to themselves?
I can understand that very well. As a politician, I know how difficult it is to get through with messages. For many scientists, the pandemic was the first time that they were looked over their shoulders, so to speak, while operations were running. When the BMBF published its call for funding to research Covid-19 in March of last year, we knew almost nothing about the virus. No comparison with today. It was all the more important that scientists – like Christian Drosten with his podcast – really took people with them when they gained knowledge about science. He has also shown that scientific knowledge is not set in stone, but is always evolving. But it is clear to me that public communication takes time and is exhausting. But scientists should still face this task. Talking to people about science and research and taking in their perspectives should be seen as part of their mission.
Drosten has in one interview talked about the fact that before the pandemic he had no idea what role the false balance in the public and in the media play: If one opinion is represented by a hundred scientists, but only two of them have the opposite thesis, then one becomes in the media presentation of the hundred against one of these two. Politicians then say: “Well, then the truth will lie in the middle.” In your opinion, is this correct?
I pointed out early on in the pandemic that it must always be made clear what the majority opinion is and what positions are only represented by a minority. That too is part of a comprehensive education of the public. This also applies to climate change. There, too, it is of course problematic if an outsider’s view is presented as if it were a confirmed doctrine.
There is a standing science commission in the UK and other countries that provides advice to the government. Would such a commission solve the problem of the false balancing not defuse something?
In Germany we have the National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, whose tasks include advising politicians and the public. Since the beginning of the pandemic, the federal and state governments have repeatedly obtained additional know-how from Christian Drosten, from Lothar Wieler, head of the Robert Koch Institute, and from many others. Perhaps it was more of an advantage that this group was not rigidly fixed, so new voices could always be heard – like that of Ms. Priesemann.
You have already mentioned climate research. Up until the 1990s, many climate researchers still argued very “scientifically” in public, which was sometimes understood to mean that their results were not at all certain. Would the perception of climate change and thus climate policy have been different if climate researchers had communicated differently?
You have to see that it is precisely about: showing what we know for sure and at the same time making it clear how scientific work works. 30 years ago there was still no conclusive knowledge that the climate change that was already emerging at that time was really due to humans. But that changed a long time ago and today the situation is completely clear. The knowledge is one thing, the implementation is another. Of course, climate protection policy depends on the breadth of society supporting it. Since Fridays for Future, it has been much easier to win over society as a whole to a committed climate protection policy.
Aren’t you afraid that you will face more and more scientists who are so good at communicating that politics will come under more pressure than you would like? The Scientists for Future, for example, has not exactly made an election call in favor of the Union.
I am very grateful that scientists are committed to a committed climate protection policy. For the Union, however, the preservation of creation is an obligation and thus climate protection has always been a central issue. As a people’s party, we bring the different points of view together. It’s part of our DNA as a people’s party. And that is also different than with the Greens, for example. As a people’s party, we have the entire breadth of people in view and we want to include everyone with us – the young and the elderly, urban and rural populations. We want to strengthen environmental protection and economic power, not play them off against each other. For us as the CDU, it is unthinkable to leave part of society behind.
Hubertus Volmer and Clara Suchy spoke to Anja Karliczek
.