Recently, the "Study on Ambivalences and Skepticism in Austria with Regard to Science and Democracy" commissioned by the BMBWF and conducted by the Institute for Advanced Studies (IHS) and the Danish Aarhus University was presented. It is part of the 10-point program to strengthen trust in science and democracy in Austria. The focus was on the relationships between science, society, and democracy, in order to identify key explanatory factors as well as concrete areas for action. The role of science communication in negative attitudes of science was the subject of a research review by researchers at TU Braunschweig, commissioned by the Transfer Unit Science Communication.
The two research papers come to similar conclusions and recommendations for action: Even if a large part of the population has a fundamentally positive attitude toward science and democracy, negative attitudes represent a challenge that should be actively addressed. These affect all parts of society and are related to skepticism about democracy (Starkbaum et al. 2023). In this context, the dimensions span a broad spectrum: from (constructive) criticism of science, distrust of science, skepticism of science, science-related populism, denial of science, cynicism of science, to hostility toward science (Peters, Peter & Biermann 2023). Thus, a differentiated discussion of different forms is needed to develop specific starting points.
Since science is not very present in everyday life for many people, there are often (too) abstract ideas about how it works (Starkbaum et al. 2023). To strengthen trust, measures such as open and target group-oriented communication about scientific processes (and not only results), about uncertainties and contradictions are therefore essential (ibid.). Transparency regarding data, work processes and opinions (keyword “Open Science”) plays a particularly important role. Citizen science in particular is also a good way of making research processes more accessible by actively involving laypersons and strengthening scientific literacy in the population (Peters, Peter & Biermann 2023).
In addition, it is important to reduce the negative effects, for example, by actively reacting to scientifically skeptical statements, misinformation, and disinformation, and by uncovering and correcting them. Important strategies include educating people about disinformation techniques (inoculation) as well as addressing common misinterpretations (prebunking). However, at the latest since the Corona pandemic, negative reactions to this are no longer uncommon. Appropriate institutions should support researchers in dealing with personal hostility even better in the future (Peters, Peter & Biermann 2023).
New spaces for dialogue and participation, as well as transparent and self-reflective engagement in public discourse, help to build and strengthen a trustful relationship between science and the public (Starkbaum et al. 2023).
Sources and further information
Starkbaum, Johannes et al. (2023). Ursachenstudie zu Ambivalenzen und Skepsis in Österreich in Bezug auf Wissenschaft und Demokratie – Endbericht. Wien. Verfügbar unter: BMBWF-Publikationenshop
Peters, Nicola, Peter, Evelyn & Biermann, Kaija (2023). Kann Wissenschaftskommunikation einen Beitrag dazu leisten, Wissenschaftsskepsis und Wissenschaftsleugnung in Deutschland zu reduzieren? Berlin. Verfügbar unter: Wie kann die Wissenschaftskommunikation auf Wissenschaftsskepsis und Wissenschaftsleugnung reagieren? - Transfer Unit | Wissenschaftskommunikation
You can find more information about science communication in our new dossier: Wisskomm | Zentrum für Citizen Science (zentrumfuercitizenscience.at)
