Should scientists deliberately withhold their own opinion and let their research results speak for themselves - or should they actively interfere with politics with statements and debates? The organization "Wissenschaft im Dialog" (WID) surveyed around a thousand people in Germany in the "Science Barometer 2019" and at least got a clear answer on the climate crisis.
The background was that climate researchers are making a public appeal for the "Fridays for Future" protests and questioning political decisions. On behalf of WID, the opinion research institute Kantar Emnid wanted to use a representative survey to find out from the public whether it is right for scientists to make public statements when political decisions do not take into account research results.
Three out of four respondents (75 percent) agreed that researchers should refer to the case. Only seven percent were against it. 16 percent of respondents could not decide on a single page (see chart below).
Get out of the ivory tower
The extent to which researchers should be part of public opinion formation beyond purely technical sucking off is a political issue. Because science seldom provides definitive knowledge. It tries to understand how something works or runs under certain conditions. Research creates facts with a lot of ifs and buts.
In order to derive political messages, experts need to simplify and aggravate them. Critics think nothing of it. When it comes to them, researchers provide their expertise with all the limitations. What conclusions the society should draw from it, must then clarify the policy.
But not all of them see it that way. Proponents of scientists who interfere in political discourse argue that public research is funded by tax revenues and that society therefore has a right to benefit from it. Researchers would have to get out of the ivory tower.
Not every form of interference is desired
However, the question also depends on how experts intervene, the current survey shows. Thus, the pollsters presented their subjects in connection with "Fridays for Future" the following statement: "It is not up to scientists to interfere in politics." Just over a quarter agreed, only half felt that scientists should get involved.
As a reminder: When asked whether researchers should speak out publicly, if political decisions do not fit scientific findings, 75 percent were in favor. One in four respondents seems to believe that researchers should speak out in public, but not interfere directly with politics.
At the same time, more than a quarter of respondents felt that science is currently influencing politics to the exact extent that is right. 44 out of 100 people thought the influence was too low. Dissatisfaction was even greater in the "Science Barometer 2014": at that time, only 19 percent considered the influence of research on politics to be just right. More than half thought it was too low.
Common sense or scientific facts?
Remarkable in the current survey is also that only a good half of the respondents were of the opinion that political decisions should be based on scientific findings.
In addition, a third of respondents to "Fridays for Future" found that we should rely more on "common sense" rather than scientific studies.
"Common sense" tends to be used in public debates when it comes to denying scientific facts or presenting facts regardless of complex backgrounds. Thus, some AfD politicians claim that the climate on Earth is determined by the solar activity and therefore man can not do anything anyway.
Abyss of the human psyche
Sounds logical, but in truth, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere plays the crucial role in increasing the global temperature. This is known because researchers have meanwhile scientifically verified "common sense". Scientific surveys are the control of common sense.
How often polls give conflicting answers or are guided by what answers may be desired is shown in another questionnaire of the current survey: 66 percent of respondents agreed that science and research will help solve key human problems. At the same time, 43 percent felt that we should put more emphasis on existing and less on new technologies.
The respondents were therefore sure that new findings are important, but still wanted to stick to the old.
