TalTechi ettevõtlusprorektor
Lately, there has been much debate about how scientists should communicate their research and its results to the public and to what extent they should shape public opinion based on scientific evidence. Are scientists visible enough? If so, could they do better? If not, why is that the case?
Since I was recognized as early as 2008 for my environmental blog Keskkonnaabi, I will share my perspective based on the experiences I have gained while running a blog.
I am convinced that scientists could and should communicate their work and its results roughly five times more than they do now. Of course, there are already quite a few scientists who are constantly in the public eye. Their ability to successfully secure research and development projects is a significant factor in this. If evaluators have heard of a scientist before, they rate the needs outlined in their applications more highly. This phenomenon can also be viewed from another angle: if journalists pick up a science-related topic, it can be inferred that it is essential.
A great example of increasing the visibility of science and scientists is the PhD competition organized by the Estonian Academy of Sciences. Participants must explain their research and its significance in just three minutes. We have used the same method at university-industry collaboration festivals, where scientists deliver three-minute elevator pitches.
This format was enjoyable and highly effective: scientists learned to present their goals and experiences engagingly and concisely, while audiences quickly received the essential information. After all, there are plenty of stories about scientists who plan to give a 30-minute presentation with 60 slides but, five minutes before their time is up, are still on slide ten—without explaining a single formula in a way that makes sense to the audience. The elevator pitch method should be applied much more widely, as it helps condense complex topics and find formulations that are both accurate and stripped of unnecessary details.
Companies and Scientists Collaboration Day 2023 | Photo: Estonian Research Counci
A scientist’s perspective doesn’t always have to align with the “mainstream”
A completely different question is how much scientists should apply their expertise in public debates–how actively they should engage in discussions on topics important to society. On the one hand, the public discourse is flooded with all sorts of opinions, making it difficult for an individual voice to stand out, even if it is articulated with nuance and thoughtfulness. On the other hand, if a professional scientist does not speak up, their silence will be filled by someone else–possibly someone with significantly less, or even no, expertise. The media does not tolerate a vacuum.
At the same time, a scientist’s employment contract does not include a “social responsibility” clause–the willingness or need to engage in societal discussions depends entirely on the individual.
However, if we start questioning scientists’ social sensitivity, another issue arises: Should, or to what extent, a scientist’s perspective align with the official “mainstream” view? I believe that it does not always have to. Of course, a scientist should recognize the conspiracy theories that are so prevalent today. But at the other extreme, political correctness may not always be the most correct choice, either.
Let me share two examples from my experience. When I once spoke out about the toxicity and dangers of mercury lamps, I received an angry phone call from a high-ranking official who believed I should not have criticized European Union regulations. However, having worked at the EU Joint Research Centre myself, I know very well that every regulation is a compromise, every regulation has its weaknesses, and the EU’s goal has never been to hide them–our officials often tend to overinterpret the rules.
Another example involves asbestos cement roofing, which people fear as if it were something highly toxic and deadly. In reality, the harmful effects of asbestos occur only when needle-like asbestos fibres are inhaled into the lungs. In asbestos cement, these particles are bound within the cement, preventing them from posing a risk. A reader once asked me about the magazine Tiiu and whether water collected from an asbestos cement roof is safe to drink. Of course, it is. The only risk from asbestos cement comes when it is cut with a circular saw without a protective mask, inhaling the resulting dust.
For me, the fear of asbestos cement roofing remains a mystery. Regulations exist, and that’s why no further discussion seems necessary. However, people still want to know whether they are at risk and what those risks might be.
Every regulation is a compromise, every regulation has its weaknesses, and the European Union's goal has never been to hide them. | Photo: Planet Volumes/Unsplash
The fears of young scientists
Young scientists, however, are often held back by the fear that expressing their opinions may collide with a wall of hostility. As the Estonian Young Academy of Sciences stated in an article published in Eesti Päevaleht:
“Scientists often have to take difficult and uncomfortable positions in society, yet unlike government leaders, they lack protection–no team, no legal counsel, no psychological support.”
Perhaps this is precisely why TalTech created the Trialoog portal, designed to foster and guide discussions between scientists, society, and decision-makers. Every scientific topic is inherently complex and has multiple dimensions, and every expert opinion matters–whether or not it aligns with the mainstream.
Trialoog enables these discussions to take place calmly and in-depth. There is no urgent need to respond immediately to social tensions; instead, it encourages reflection on the intersections between science and society rather than mere reaction. Trialoog can also be seen as a kind of elevator. Still, one that moves slowly within a limitless building–on one end of the journey, you find the grassroots levels of science, politics, and business, and on the other, an observation deck that offers a broad perspective on the intricate and dynamic relationships between these fields.
Ultimately, even proverbs hold only within specific contexts. For instance, the saying “Speech is silver, silence is golden” does not apply to popularizing science.
