Science : Let it Spin ! (English Version)

Par Jean-Marie Benoist

Three key elements :

• Science will not save the world by itself, but it will change it ; fundamental research is indispensable for practical innovation.
• Hard science is very dependent on governments, but does not mix well with politics, even more so now, when trust is an issue.
• The communication with the public is a necessity, and needs to be reinvented.

Science is everywhere in our daily lives, even if we do not always realize it. It is also necessary to solve many of the planet’s most pressing issues. While science, and scientists face challenges of their own, are they the ones who are going to save the world? How do science and scientists fit into today’s debates? How can scientists reconnect with the public?

To discuss these subjects, we invited Élodie Chabrol (Neuroscientist and head of International Development at Pint of Science), James Kakalios (Physicist and Author of The Physics of Superheroes), Ben Feringa (Chemist, Professor at the University of Groeningen – NL and Nobel Prize Laureate in 2016), Jean-Marie Solvay (President of the International Solvay Institutes for Physics and Chemistry) and Tim Lewens (Professor and Director of Graduate Studies, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge) at Antenne TV. A session organized by Solvay and the Social Media Club France and hosted by Timandra Harkness (BBC).

Many of the world’s more acute problems need science to be solved. But science cannot do it by itself. “If we take the example of a medical situation in the third world, drugs are not going to be enough, explains Tim Lewens. You have to take into account the history of colonialism, the powers at play… Humanities and social sciences are going to be part of the solution.” Other subjects – AI, genetic engineering… – raise ethical questions… Nonetheless, to be able to make a decision on these issues, to understand the risks, one needs the knowledge that science brings. Which does not mean that scientists should be the only one making the decisions either. “Even though scientists are trained to be impartial, they are human, and emotions will come into play, says Tim Lewens. An AI specialist will know the subject very well, but might not be objective when it comes to decide on the future of AI research…”

Science feeds innovation

If scientists might not save the world by themselves, it is undeniable that science has had a major impact on it : computers, planes, cell phones… A lot of everyday life’s features can be directly linked to advances in hard science, but the public, for the most part, ignores it. “It is only when you go through the fundamental questions that you can find solutions further down the line”, explains Jean-Marie Solvay.
In some ways, science is the gift that keeps on giving. History is replete with examples to that effect, with the added twist that, more often than not, the practical applications were not part of the plan. “When Schroëdinger was exploring modern quantum mechanics, in the 1920s, he certainly didn’t have in mind the transistor and the laser, which appeared in the 1950s, and even less the computer, the CD, cellphones…”, notes James Kakalios.

Tim Lewens: We must join up the sciences with the humanities, with the social sciences if we're really going to solve any of these big problems #TeamScience @SMCFrance @socialmediaclub pic.twitter.com/eMEoSqz58y

— Solvay (@SolvayGroup) 11 décembre 2017

Without the constant research into the fundamental questions, who knows what might happen to the stream of innovations we all have become familiar with? Could we actually focus on practical innovations, and not fundamental research? “If you are working towards a specific application, you have specific constraints, that could blind you to other explanations”, argues Jean-Marie Solvay. Hence the importance of research done almost for research’s sake, where scientists are free to explore the limits of their knowledge.

But fundamental research, even though it is indispensable to innovation, has a major fault: it is very hard to make money when you do not know what you are searching for.

Who foots the bill ?

Which is why fundamental science is the almost exclusive prerogative of governments and big companies. During the 1950s, the US sponsored fundamental research by hiring the best people and letting them loose, a mix of freedom and empowerment that still fuels most of today’s innovations. “This is what government should do, says Jean-Marie Solvay. It is part of their responsibility. Even Google does not have the resources.”

Furthermore, the question of education cannot be ignored. “Imagine a government that wouldn’t support science: how would we train the students? They have to be trained at the cutting edge of their field, otherwise we will already be behind”, explains Ben Feringa.

As for big companies, even though they are players on the science scene, their implication is often discreet, for good reasons. “Historically, publicizing the involvement of a company into research has not gone well, indicates Tim Lewens. One of the worst public debates in the UK was about GMOs, largely because Monsanto tried to organize it. Many people were left with the idea that it was some kind of con…” In some ways, companies cannot win: if they go public with their involvement, the research is tainted to the eyes of the public; and if they don’t, then they must have some kind of a plan.

Science and Politics

The paradox is that science, that relies so much on government, is barely compatible with politics. “Scientists might be ambitious, but they know “they are standing on the shoulder of giants”, which gives them a certain humility, notes Tim Lewens. They are mostly devoted to craft well-made bricks, and that takes time.” And that agenda is mostly incompatible with the political one, where one needs to get one’s way and find solutions now.

Yet their input in the public debate is crucial. “Scientists have to stay neutral, and not appear as if they are on any particular politician’s side”, advises Élodie Chabrol. Which is easier said than done. By design, scientific facts do not point in any specific ideological direction; but the current political climate makes participating in the debate risky, particularly in the USA, where “politics is now tribal, says James Kakalios. And there is a real danger in being sucked into this tribalism, because it deals in emotions, not facts. You need today to maintain the integrity of facts, and where they land.” Guilt by association is very real – and guilt means loss of credibility.

A matter of trust

And credibility is a precious currency. “People need to trust scientists, says Élodie Chabrol. Discoveries can be great, but if there is no trust…” Trust in science has always ebbed and flowed, but it has been brought back to the forefront since the election of Donald Trump to the United States presidency. The fact, for example, that an issue that has the overwhelming majority of the scientific community behind it – climate change – is still up for political and public debate is, to some, unfathomable: after all, science is built to be as objective as possible. Example: the peer review process. “You publish your idea, and everybody gets to read and criticize it – and if it holds water, then it gets accepted”, sums up Jean-Marie Solvay.

As such, science has an accepted criterion for what is correct, which is something that the humanities and the arts do not have. “When the vetting is passed, you can trust the idea, and build on it, says James Kakalios. We do not have to go back…” But a part of the problem is that the public, for the most part, does not know how science works.

“People do not know what is happening in the labs, how and why we publish, explains Élodie Chabrol. Science is not fast: one experiment in biology takes on average six months, and we have to repeat them…” On bad TV, getting the results of a DNA test takes 5 seconds, and people think that is how it works. They need to see real people, and understand how it really proceeds; “we have to tell what the value of science is, what is a fact, and what is fiction”, says Ben Feringa.

Opening the dialogue

To achieve that goal, the only way is to open a real dialogue with the public. What exists today is inadequate; there is communication towards the public, “but if all the public hears about is colliding black holes, that is all they will think it is”, says James Kakalios. Science becomes quickly hard to access for the public: too complex, too much math… “In the past, there was a tendency to talk down to people – I know and you don’t -, and people do not like that, says Jean-Marie Solvay. We are running at the end of the cycle of ‘you do not understand, but trust us’. We need a new balance.”

Let’s use #Superman & #Spiderman to eliminate the negative stigma associated with #Science 😉 #TeamScience @SMCFrance @socialmediaclub pic.twitter.com/Bo0iptttBF

— Solvay (@SolvayGroup) 11 décembre 2017

And that starts with listening: to questions, doubts, worries… In some ways, for any progress to be made, scientist are going to have to learn to communicate. And it is learning.

“At the basis of communication, there is emotion and storytelling, explains Élodie Chabrol. How does it relate to me? Why am I concerned? To get to people, you have to put science in a story.”

The problem is that scientists are trained to do the exact opposite. Yet, the stories are there. When a scientist is asked why he does what he does, passion is always going to enter the picture at some point. “It is not as is we were pushing back the boundaries of science every day, says James Kakalios. But it is about asking questions that bother you; I would like, for example, to understand disorganized matter better…”

“There is the sheer excitement to go in uncharted territories, looking for why and how, describes Ben Feringa. We are made of atoms, but how do we end up communicating? How does it all work? There are still a lot of mysteries to solve…”

Scientist need to be able to channel that passion into their dialogue with the public. The discourse might be less scientifically rigorous, but it is more relatable. And it works. “With the Pint of Science Festival, the idea was to take a scientist, and put them in pubs and bars to talk about their research, explains Élodie Chabrol. It is a difficult exercise: we prepare them…” Amongst the given advice : there is no hard concept, one just needs to find the right angle to explain it. And at the end of every discussion, people ask questions – also an opportunity to listen. “We got some feedback from some searchers, who were actually helped in putting their research back in context thanks to questions by the audience.”

In partnership with

Retrouvez également nos articles sur le blog du SMC sur Zdnet :