Science and Society need more interaction instead of mere communication. An Interview with Volker Meyer-Guckel – Elephant in the Lab

Volker Meyer-Guckel

Science and Society need more interaction instead of mere communication. An Interview with Volker Meyer-Guckel

In this interview Teresa Völker speaks with Dr. Volker Meyer-Guckel about challenges and possible futures of science communication.

17 October 2023

Infrastructure · Open Science

Science communication is often considered equal with public relations or media coverage. However, the phenomenon is significantly more complex, and its most important aspects are not given enough attention. For instance, science includes how science can not only communicate but also interact with societal groups, and the potential impacts this can have on the perception of research in the public eye. Dr. Volker Meyer-Guckel, Chair of the Donors’ Association, explained in an interview with "Elephant in the Lab" why our understanding is outdated and how effective science communication can be achieved.

What is the goal of science communication for you? What can science communication achieve?

The goals of science communication should evolve in alignment with how science, communication, and society are changing; it cannot be reduced to a single factor. Currently, about 90 percent of science communication is rather irrelevant to society and primarily serves as self-promotion for research institutions or is a form of political lobbying on its own behalf. It is primarily concerned with presenting research institutions and unilaterally mediatizing research results. This form is insufficient, yet it consumes many resources. Science communication becomes intriguing when science interacts with society. Peter Weingart, a renowned researcher in this field, once wrote, ‘The alleged gap between science and society is a political construct.’ I would like to question this thesis, suggesting that there is no gap.

To what extent?

First and foremost, it can be noted that many of the current societal debates about how we should live, how we should conduct our economy, how we should communicate, and what we should fear are significantly influenced by science. There are indeed various positions and debates within and outside of science, to say the least. However, there are also other reference points, communication logics, and value systems. Addressing this would be a major task for science communication. But there’s more to it: when life sciences deeply interfere with the genetic codes of living organisms, when researcher-created artificial intelligence fundamentally changes the way we communicate, exchange knowledge, and produce insights, or when epidemiologists, armed with both secure knowledge and uncertain findings, make decisions that touch upon societal principles of freedom, one cannot, in my opinion, retreat and say that the societal relevance of the state of scientific debates is solely the realm of politics. We are part of this space; scientific discourse spaces are increasingly intertwined with political and societal ones. Here, there is a need for many more bridges to be built, bridges that are systematically thought out and not left to the media behavior of individual scientists or institutions – a vast field for science communication that is hardly explored.

What role does the attention economy play in this, meaning the fact that attention is a scarce resource? Which research findings actually gain access to public and political debates?

In a so-called “attention economy”, research generally has little success chances because in order to grasp attention traditional triggers are required such as sensation, morality, and outrage. However, there are areas where voices from the scientific community are expected, especially in societal conflicts and transformation processes fueled by specific research findings but leading to ethical, economic, or social controversies. For me, this is the truly interesting and largely unexplored space for science communication. There is not enough understanding of how science operates in these spaces, how it should operate, and how it changes itself and society as a result. Much more attention should be paid to this, both within the scientific community and in the realm of science communication and science funding. Furthermore, there is a need for spaces where researchers with experience in science communication can exchange their insights with those actively engaging in societal debates.

Who is THE science that communicates?

A good question. There is, of course, no single science, but rather different disciplines and perspectives on societal challenges, phenomena, and issues. A common problem with scientific policy advice is that it often represents only a small spectrum of the available expertise. For example, during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Leopoldina issued a recommendation regarding school closures, which was based on...