Should researchers get involved in political debates?
Two ETH researchers argue whether researchers should get involved in political discussions.
For
Climate change and vaccine hesitancy are highly emotional topics rife with controversy. Despite the vast amount of scientific evidence of our changing climate and the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, the debate surrounding them couldn’t be more vicious. The harder scientists appeal to the facts, the faster they are dismissed. But why is there such mistrust between the scientific community and the public? And how is this gap reflected in policymaking?
As with any complex dynamic, many factors are at play. Research institutions tend to underestimate the importance of public outreach. Once media outlets assume this role, they often report exaggerated or decontextualised claims. In pursuit of their own agendas, lobby groups regularly propagate misleading and questionable data. As a result, the public has problems identifying which sources can be trusted and is overwhelmed by a constant barrage of shocking and contradictory claims.
"Whether we like it or not, science and politics are already engaged in dialogue."Nicola Nuti
I think that the scientific community must become a powerful voice in the political debate. Expecting scientists to merely produce unbiased data implies that science can adopt a neutral stance. But research is a political act in itself. It is publicly funded, and the questions it addresses are often chosen for their contribution to societal change. Whether we like it or not, science and politics are already engaged in dialogue.
Scientists must learn the language of politics and present guiding evidence and actionable roadmaps. We must structure and summarise our findings and calmly and confidently present our opinions. By joining in the political discourse and speaking a common language, we have a moral duty to advocate change. We need to be as much a part of the political debate as we are of research. If we fail to communicate the importance and scope of our work and leave the fight for change in someone else’s hands, we will not see the fruits of our efforts.
Against
Society pays us to discover new information, assess its reliability and communicate our findings with honesty. Politics, however, is rooted in power and propaganda – two aspects that are scarcely compatible with honest communication. Researchers who choose to become involved in political debates are not voicing the opinions of a scientific discipline, but their own as members of the public. In doing so, they lose the right to represent their scientific discipline in political issues.
In recent years, however, there has been a trend towards politicians basing their decisions on arguments that start with “Scientists have said that...”. These statements are nearly always false, because politics rarely deals with issues on which all the world’s scientists have reached a consensus. A slightly more honest statement might sound something like: “The vast majority of scientists believe that…” – but this means leaving the domain of knowledge and entering the realm of beliefs. There was a time when the vast majority of physicists believed in the aether theory, but it turned out to be wrong: it was, in fact, Albert Einstein who sounded the death knell on this notion. And even Einstein himself struggled with the idea of “spooky action at a distance” in quantum mechanics – but this did turn out to exist!
"Although they have an impact in political debates, the terms “majority” and “authority” do nothing to develop and spread knowledge."Gunnar Jeschke
Although they have an impact in political debates, the terms “majority” and “authority” do nothing to develop and spread knowledge. Science instead is interested in the better argument or better data – things that might not be discovered until tomorrow, next month or ten years down the line. However, people who have already made up their minds for political reasons will defend their opinion even if it becomes indefensible from a scientific point of view. And they will be particularly tempted to stick to their line if it is in their own personal interest to do so. This is certainly what happens in politics – whether the politicians end up being credible or not.
Whatever the case, our research results are rarely as clear-cut and certain as is indicated by prominent scientists in political debates: in practice, you will always find renowned experts who disagree about the issues at hand. It is when these opinions are presented as pure scientific fact that people lose their faith in scientists and science as a whole.
This article appeared in the current ETH magazine "life".