No. 113/2021

27 HUMBOLDT KOSMOS 113/2021 feeling is that one should rather concentrate on system- atically supporting those who are good at it and enjoy the role and leave it to them to do the talking. Any number of ideas about how to bolster science com- munication are now being discussed, first and foremost training opportunities to reinforce researchers’ com- municative competence. In the German science system, the culture of recognition for communication should be improved. A public foundation could promote good sci- ence journalism at regional level. Defence units at Ger- man universities and research institutions could sup- port researchers who become the target of hostility. More research should be done on the impact of communication measures on various target groups, not least to employ resources more effectively, because additional, new meas- ures will cost money that will possibly have to be axed elsewhere. IN THE WEB OF CONSPIRACY MYTHS Moreover, impact research is important because despite many years of science communication, there are doubts as to whether and how we can reach those who don’t give a toss about scientific facts. So, how should we penetrate the echo chambers of climate change deniers, for example? The silver bullet of science communication that even reaches those who have completely withdrawn into the murky depths of conspiracy myths is yet to be invented. But you can’t give up according to the successful German science journalist Mai Thi Nguyen-Kim on her YouTube channel maiLab. Science must interfere, she said at the final #FactoryWisskommmeeting, otherwise you clear the way for those who twist the science and instrumentalise it for political and ideological ends. With her YouTube chan- nel, which has more than 1.3 million subscribers, the sci- ence journalist with a doctorate in chemistry has found a recipe that might even win over science sceptics. “Con- spiracy theories that twist the science are often remarke- bly detailed, even when the details are wrong,” she has observed. “The impression they make on non-specialists is positive: Someone is taking the time to get to the heart of things whilst elsewhere they are just abridged. In our experience, when we dig deep into the methods, stats and confidence intervals, the response is good. People want to know what’s what. And that’s the only way you can end up winning the argument.” Meeting people who want to know exactly what’s what describes the experience of researchers who want to explain more and better. This is the message contained in the results of an online survey conducted recently by the German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies, the National Institute for Science Com- munication and the Impact Unit of Wissenschaft im Dia- log, the organisation for science communication. Eighty percent of the approximately 5,700 researchers at German universities and non-university research institutions sur- veyed agreed with the statement that they enjoyed commu- nicating and thought it enriched their job. And 91 percent believed that science communication should aim to rein- force science-based decision making in society. Eighteen months into the pandemic, we can recognise positive trends in science communication – despite all the structural and individual challenges. After all, every- one involved has learnt a lot: the public about how science works, science about what it must take into consideration when communicating with the public and, finally, politics and the media about how they can deal with uncertainty and minority opinions in research more effectively. A DIALOGUE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND THE MEDIA The Humboldt Communication Lab for Exchange between Research and Media www.humboldt-foundation.de/ en/comlab TEN-POINT PLAN Recommendations by the Alliance of Science Organi­ sations for improving science communication www.humboldt-foundation.de/ en/alliance-scicom-10-point- plan SCIENCE COMMUNICATION IN A NUTSHELL The International Summer School “Communicating Science” www.humboldt-foundation.de/ en/communicating-science