Event Report – Decoding Polarisation in Debates on Sustainable Food Systems

/in , , , , /by

A 3-part workshop series focused on developing tools to depolarise conversations on sustainable food systems comes to an end.

Between October and December 2024, ALLEA, in partnership with Re-Imagine Europa, organised a 3-part online workshop series, titled, Decoding Polarisation in Debates on Sustainable Food Systems. The invite-only event included diverse stakeholders, such as farmers, academics, activists, and policymakers, who came together to dive deep into the question, “How can we have more constructive conversations on sustainable food systems in Europe that lead to mutually-beneficial and innovative solutions?”

The hands-on and interactive workshops built on each other as they explored the “who”, “what”, “where”, and “why” of  the current state of polarisation, and finally the “how” of depolarising these critical conversations to arrive at innovative solutions for an inclusive and equitable future.

Workshop 1

 Actors and Agendas – Analysing “Who” are the Players in Sustainable Food Systems and “What” are their Interests

In the first workshop, participants mapped the different stakeholders in European food systems and discussed the different interests and agendas of these stakeholders, as well as their varying ideas of what “sustainability” means, in order to find common ground as well as their legitimate divergences. The first speaker, Barbara Gallani, Head of the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) Communication and Partnerships (ENGAGE) Department, presented work that EFSA had done on stakeholder mapping and identified discourses on food using social media data. She noted that by collecting such data on the prevailing narratives and discourses, communication efforts on controversial topics could be improved. The second speaker, Sir Charles Godfray, Director, Oxford Martin School, began his presentation by asking the slightly provocative question, “Is agreement on land-use policy in the UK and Europe achievable?” The participants were asked to debate whether, and how, agricultural intensification can coexist with conservation and biodiversity preservation efforts. In addition to the speaker presentations, participants debated the complexities of trying to build consensus among the diversity of stakeholders in European food systems, without squashing dissent and or legitimate disagreement on goals, values, and methods.

Workshop 2

Roots of Polarisation – Revealing the “Why”  

After the workshop on identifying the actors, participants were tasked with discovering the ‘roots’, i.e., the underlying social and contextual drivers, of the current state of polarisation on sustainable food systems. The session included presentations by Prof Bobby Duffy, Director of the Policy Institute at King’s College London, and Mario Scharfbillig, Science for Policy Analyst at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC). Prof Duffy presented insights into the varying polarisation models , both affective and issue-based, in the literature and invited participants to analyse which might apply to the debates on food systems in Europe. Participants also looked into how issues on sustainable food are increasingly being looked at through a ‘culture war’ lens and discussed how this could be mitigated. Mario Scharfbillig then presented the latest research from the JRC on ‘Trustworthy Public Communication’, inviting participants to think about how to enable a paradigm shift – from influencing to empowering public debates on “contentious” topics. With a disclaimer that more effective communication is not the only tool to combat polarisation, Scharfbillig shared the report’s recommendations on how to talk to the public in a way that builds, and retains, trust.

Workshop 3

Depolarisation Tools and Solutions – Discovering “How” to Have Constructive Conversations on Sustainable Food Systems

In the final workshop, participants were tasked with discussing and developing depolarisation tools and methodologies. The session included presentations by Prof Stephan Lewandowsky, Professor of Cognitive Science, University of Bristol and Prof Bram Büscher, Professor and Chair at the Sociology of Development and Change group, Wageningen University. Prof Lewandowsky, who was previously a part of ALLEA’s PERITIA project on building trust in expertise, shared his research into combatting mis- and disinformation, particularly through the use of ‘inoculation’ science, along with real-life examples of such methodologies at work. Prof Büscher then shared his insights into the power structures that underpin polarisation with a look at conservation and environmentalism in the era of post-truth politics and platform Capitalism. He stressed that there was a pressing need to build alternative networks to the hegemony of the digital space, which could be harnessed for goals such as environmental and food sustainability. Participants then debated if/how inoculation methods could be applied to controversial topics in sustainable food systems, such as new genomic techniques (NGTs), and further discussed how to build alternative networks dedicated to making food more sustainable.

A more detailed report with key insights from the workshop series will be published in Spring 2025.

ALLEA Responds to High-Level Group’s Report on Framework Programme 10

/in , , /by

The ALLEA Working Group on the ERA suggests calling it ‘MATRIX’.

On 16 October 2024, an independent expert group for the European Union’s next research programme published their report ‘Align, Act, Accelerate: Research, Technology and Innovation to boost European Competitiveness‘. Chaired by Portugal’s former research minister Manuel Heitor, the high-level group included several fellows of ALLEA Member Academies, such as Heinz Fassmann, President of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. The report sets out an ambitious vision for the future of European research and innovation and calls for a significant increase in the budget of the next EU Framework Programme to €220 billion — a move that ALLEA strongly supports as evident from ALLEA’s recommendations outlined in a December 2023 statement. ALLEA has consistently called for a similarly ambitious budget, recognising that such investment is necessary to ensure that Europe maintains its position as a global leader in research and innovation. While ALLEA, through its Working Group on the European Research Area (WG ERA), applauds the High-Level Group for its achievement and supports many of the report’s objectives, there are concerns regarding some of the structural changes proposed.

Budget Increase

The High-Level Group highlights the critical need for a substantial budget increase, not just to boost Europe’s competitiveness but also to sustain world-class research across all disciplines. ALLEA agrees that without this financial boost, Europe risks falling behind global competitors like the United States and China. However, it is crucial that this increase supports both fundamental and applied research so that we can ensure Europe’s leadership through a balanced investment across fields, including the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH).

Risk of Fragmentation

The report proposes creating two new bodies — the Industrial Competitiveness and Technology Council and the European Societal Challenges Council — to manage much of FP10’s collaborative research programmes independently from the European Commission. While ALLEA acknowledges the potential benefits of increased flexibility, it is concerned that these proposed governance changes could lead to a fragmentation of the research agenda. WG ERA, in a recent meeting in Copenhagen, expressed that the emphasis on industrial competitiveness raises concerns about an overemphasis on applied research at the expense of long-term, fundamental scientific inquiry. While fostering industrial innovation is undoubtedly important, the Working Group stresses that curiosity-driven research is often the bedrock of groundbreaking discoveries. FP10 must, therefore, maintain a balance between addressing immediate industrial needs and supporting the kind of fundamental research that leads to transformative scientific advancements.

Interdisciplinary Research and the Role of SSH

Solving the complex challenges Europe faces — whether environmental, technological, or societal — requires collaboration across scientific disciplines. ALLEA values the report’s recognition of the importance of inter- and transdisciplinary research. In this context, ALLEA reiterates the importance of continuously integrating SSH into broader research agendas to ensure that solutions to societal challenges are not only technically sound, but also socially responsible and human-centred.

ALLEA remains concerned that the report’s emphasis on industrial competitiveness and applied research may unintentionally marginalise the role of SSH, and urges that the new framework take a holistic approach to research funding, ensuring that SSH disciplines are adequately represented and funded, particularly in areas such as migration, inequality, and democratic governance, where their insights are indispensable. Promoting interdisciplinarity should not come at the cost of sidelining the valuable contributions that SSH can offer.

Supporting Excellence in Widening Countries

Both ALLEA and the High-Level Group emphasise the importance of supporting research excellence in ‘Widening’ countries — those EU member states that currently lag behind in research and innovation performance, and which are essential bridges to future EU member states. ALLEA has long advocated for increased funding and capacity-building initiatives to ensure that these countries can participate fully in Europe’s research ecosystem. Ensuring that Widening countries have access to competitive funding, top-tier research infrastructure, and international collaboration opportunities will foster cohesion and facilitate access to European research ecosystems, and is crucial for building a more inclusive and resilient ERA.

Supporting Young Researchers and Fostering Mobility

A critical element of ALLEA’s vision is the support and development of early-career researchers. The High-Level Group’s report acknowledges the importance of fostering the next generation of scientific leaders by improving research mobility, providing career support, and reducing administrative burdens.

ALLEA fully endorses these goals, recognising that young researchers are the future of European science. Their ability to move freely between institutions, collaborate internationally, and access top-tier resources is essential for maintaining Europe’s research excellence. FP10 must provide funding and mobility frameworks, as well as mentorship programmes, to foster the next generation of scientific leaders through interdisciplinary and international collaboration.

Collaboration Beyond the EU

The High-Level Group’s call for enhanced international collaboration resonates strongly with ALLEA’s recommendations for FP10. In today’s globalised world, solving major challenges requires partnerships beyond the EU, particularly with institutions in non-EU countries. Increased  mobility and stronger research ties are essential for maintaining Europe’s leadership in research and innovation.

Promoting Diversity and Inclusion

Diversity and inclusion are key drivers of innovation and ensure that European research remains dynamic and relevant. ALLEA strongly supports the report’s emphasis on promoting gender equality, encouraging diversity in research teams, and ensuring the inclusion of under-represented groups. A diverse research community generates more impactful solutions.

A Balanced Approach

The High-Level Group’s report provides a comprehensive and ambitious vision for FP10, with many proposals that align closely with ALLEA’s guiding principles. ALLEA welcomes the call for a significant budget increase, the focus on Widening countries, and the importance placed on interdisciplinary research – and proposes the name ‘MATRIX’ to capture the cross-cutting, interwoven qualities and competitive robustness of the framework programme.

As the European research community prepares for the next phase of the Framework Programme, it is essential that research funding remains inclusive, transparent, and driven by scientific excellence. ALLEA remains committed to working with all stakeholders to ensure that the new framework supports a thriving, diverse, and globally competitive European research MATRIX capable of addressing the major challenges of our time.

Official negotiations on the next Framework Programme will only begin in mid-2025, on the basis of a proposal from the newly composed European Commission. FP10 will start in 2028, and is expected to have a duration of seven years, until 2034.

ALLEA Turns 30 and Elects New President, Board, and Members

/in , /by

The General Assembly of ALLEA, the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities, convened in Berlin to commemorate its 30th anniversary and inaugurate a new president and board. Paweł Rowiński assumed the role of the organisation’s eighth president, taking over from Antonio Loprieno, who led ALLEA from 2018 onwards. Additionally, the assembly welcomed three young academies as new members thereby expanding ALLEA’s total membership to 59.

Around 70 delegates from across Europe gathered in Berlin on 22 May for the 2024 ALLEA General Assembly, co-hosted by the National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, the Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities, and the German Young Academy. The event stood as a milestone in ALLEA’s history, commemorating the 30th anniversary of the organisation, as well as consolidating its legal status as a registered charitable organisation in Germany.

The meeting of representatives from more than 50 member academies marked the starting point for a new president and board for the term 2024-2027. Professor Paweł Rowiński of the Polish Academy of Sciences, who has served on the organisation’s board since 2018, will steer ALLEA as President for the next three years.

Professor Rowiński, an outstanding scholar specialising in Earth Sciences, previously held the position of Vice-President at the Polish Academy of Sciences from 2015 to 2022 and serves as the Director of the academy’s Institute of Geophysics in Warsaw. His research interests include mathematical methods in geophysics, geophysical flows, river hydrodynamics, and fluvial hydraulics. In addition to his notable contributions to his field of study, he actively engages in science advice, science popularisation, science ethics, and demonstrates a strong commitment to water and climate issues.

“ALLEA is a strong voice of European science on a global level and plays a crucial role in shaping the research ecosystem, promoting academic freedom, facilitating a green transition even in times of crises, and advising on the EU Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation. I am deeply honoured and grateful for the opportunity to serve ALLEA in the coming years. As international collaboration faces increasing challenges, cross-border cooperation among academies becomes more vital than ever. I am committed to working closely with all ALLEA members to ensure that the voice of the academies continues to be heard,” said Professor Rowiński about his upcoming presidency at ALLEA.

He succeeds Antonio Loprieno from the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences, who has led ALLEA as President since 2018. Reflecting on his term, Professor Loprieno remarked, “It has been a privilege to serve the community of European academies in a critical, but also pivotal period of our institutional history: a time during which science has turned into a decisive player in social and political life in European societies; a time during which the voice of European scientific academies has become clearer, younger, and stronger. And it is particularly gratifying to see that ALLEA’s mission will be continued by very capable hands!”

The new ALLEA Board who will serve alongside President Rowiński includes:

  • Jūras Banys – Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
  • Ylva Engström – Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
  • Annette Grüters-Kieslich – National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina/Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
  • Lara Keuck, succeeded by Kerstin Pahl (July 2025) – German Young Academy
  • Marie Louise Nosch – Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
  • Jozef Ongena – Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science and the Arts
  • Päivi Pahta – Council of Finnish Academies
  • Karin Roelofs – Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
  • Neri Salvadori – Academy of the Lincei, Italy
  • Camilla Serck-Hanssen – Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters

The ALLEA General Assembly welcomed three new members: the Young Academy of Belgium (Flanders), the Young Academy of Spain, and the Hungarian Young Academy, thereby increasing the total membership to 59 academies from EU and non-EU countries, including young and senior academies. With their admission, ALLEA now counts six young academies among its members, reflecting the organisation’s commitment to promoting inclusivity, diversity, and collaboration across generations.

 

ALLEA Working Group Gathers in Tirana to Shape Future of European Research Area and FP10

/in , , /by

On 13 October 2023, the ALLEA Working Group on the European Research Area (ERA) convened a hybrid meeting in Tirana, hosted by the Academy of Sciences of Albania. The working group expressed its eagerness to actively participate in shaping the next ERA Policy Agenda and the forthcoming EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP10), thereby highlighting its commitment to the ERA’s advancement and to creating opportunities for European and national policymakers to engage with the insights and perspectives of European Academies.  

Professor Skënder Gjinushi, President of the Academy of Sciences of Albania, officially welcomed the working group members who were present and stressed the vital importance of research collaboration within the European Union (EU), while calling for the expansion of the number of states participating in the ERA beyond the bloc. Professor Arben Merkoçi, Chair of the ALLEA Working Group on the ERA, and representing the host academy, opened the meeting, which involved representatives from 17 European academies.  

The meeting kicked off with an engaging discussion concerning the future of the ERA. Key topics debated included the European Commission’s proposal for the next ERA Policy Agenda within the Expert Group on the ERA Forum for Transition, in which ALLEA is participating as a stakeholder organisation. The working group generally welcomed the efforts by the European Commission and the Member States in the ERA Forum to deepen research collaboration in the ERA, as well as the move to streamline actions and reduce complexity. It also highlighted the importance of effective communication and emphasised expanding stakeholder engagement and contextualising actions within a broader political narrative. 

Another central issue discussed was the next EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP10). Based on the position it had recently submitted to the European Commission, the working group agreed that the central action points in the ERA Forum should also be reflected in the guiding principles for FP10. These principles should include: widening participation, open science, global scientific collaboration, research integrity, academic freedom, a healthy and effective science-policy interface, sustainable research careers, and responsible use of generative AI in research. 

About the ALLEA Working Group on the European Research Area 

The ALLEA Working Group on the ERA aims to contribute to the further development of the ERA, its political framework, implementation and monitoring. The breadth of expertise and geographical representation of the group’s membership aptly reflects the heterogeneity of the ERA itself. Chaired by Professor Arben Merkoçi of the Academy of Sciences of Albania, the working group engages with European institutions, particularly the European Commission, and collaborates with like-minded umbrella organisations from the European research and innovation landscape. 

 

How to Address an Infodemic: Experiments on (Dis)Information

/in , , , , /by

PERITIA – Policy, Expertise and Trust – is organising a workshop, titled, ‘How to Address an Infodemic: Experiments on (Dis)Information’. The event will bring together international experts working on experiments in disinformation, including John Cook (Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub), Anastasia Kozyreva (Max Plank Institute for Human Development, Berlin), and Myrto Pantazi (Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels), among others, for a full-day programme in London.

Read more

Czech Translation of ‘Fact or Fake? Tackling Science Disinformation’ is Now Available

/in , /by

ALLEA publishes the Czech version of Discussion Paper #5 ‘Fact or Fake? Tackling Science Disinformation’.

In March 2022, ALLEA published the Czech translation of its Discussion Paper ‘Fact or Fake? Tackling Science Disinformation’, which was translated in partnership with the Czech Academy of Sciences. The Discussion Paper was first published in May 2021.

ALLEA Discussion Paper ‘Fact or Fake? Tackling Science Disinformation’

The paper describes and discusses the problems and the consequences of science disinformation in three areas of concern, namely climate change, vaccines and pandemics, and what we can do to increase awareness and minimise harm caused by the spread of disinformation. It does so by highlighting the societal value of the scientific method, research integrity, open science communication and the resulting trust in science. The underlying question is how to protect the pillars of science from the severe consequences of disinformation while maintaining openness and democratic principles. The paper identifies underlying cognitive, social and economic mechanisms that amplify the spread of disinformation and evaluates potential solutions, such as inoculation, debunking, recommender systems, fact-checking, raising awareness, media literacy, and innovations in science communication and public engagement.

You can read the Czech translation here.

PERITIA Lectures: 10 Speakers, 1400+ Participants, 200+ Questions

/in , , /by

The PERITIA lectures series [Un]Truths: Trust in an Age of Disinformation came to an end this Tuesday with the final lecture ‘Expertise, Democracy and the Politics of Trust’ by Sheila Jasanoff (Harvard Kennedy School). Her lecture brought the series to a close with a reflection on the changing role of expertise across different political cultures.

Over 1400 attendees with more than 200 questions participated throughout the 10 lectures led by prominent academies from across Europe and the United States. The series explored the concepts of trust and truth in light of current events and included Q&A sessions moderated by Dr Shane Bergin and Prof Maria Baghramian (University College Dublin).

In the first part of the series, from April to June, participants were able to attend and interact with Naomi Oreskes (Harvard University), Quassim Cassam (Warwick University), Michael Lynch (University of Connecticut), Heather Douglas (Michigan State University) and Dan Sperber (Institut Jean Nicod).

The topics addressed ranged from trust in science, the value of truth in democracies or science advice systems, to conspiracy theories or cognitive science questions related to trust and argumentation.

The Autumn series, from October to November, brought together Maya J. Goldenberg (University of Guelph), Stephan Lewandowsky (University of Bristol), Philip Kitcher (Columbia University), Åsa Wikforss (Stockholm University) and Sheila Jasanoff (Harvard Kennedy School).

In this round of lectures, vaccine hesitancy, the lack of action against climate change, the impact of social media and disinformation on trust in science or the concept of knowledge resistance were discussed.

All biographies, abstracts, videos and reading materials are available online. The series was hosted by the University College Dublin and the American University of Armenia and counted with the support of ALLEA, the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities.

PERITIA is an EU-funded research project investigating public trust in expertise. ALLEA is one of the partners of the consortium, which is composed by 11 organisations from across Europe.

Visit PERITIA Lectures Website

Watch PERITIA Lectures on YouTube

Law, Human Rights & Climate Change: A Conversation with Helen Keller

/in , , , /by

Professor Helen Keller is a renowned lawyer, international judge, and professor of law, and she is the 2021 Madame de Staël Prize laureate. She was chosen as the 2021 laureate on account of her contribution to the development and consolidation of human rights jurisprudence in Europe as well as her commitment to fundamental rights. 

Professor Keller is Chair for Public Law, European and Public International Law at the University of Zurich. She is a former member of the UN Human Rights Committee and served as Judge at the European Court of Human Rights between 2011-2020. In December 2020, she was appointed Judge to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina. We are privileged to have the opportunity to sit with Professor Keller and ask her some questions about her academic and jurist career.

 

“There are two big themes that have always interested me in my research: one is the question of how to engage the law in the protection of certain groups or interests. The second deals with the clash of different legal masses.”

 

Question: Professor Keller, what does winning the 2021 Madame de Staël Prize mean to you?

Helen Keller: I am honored and humbled, indeed. It is wonderful that my efforts in research, but also as a judge, for a strong and peaceful Europe are taken note of. This gives me strength to continue working. Of course, the prize also goes to the University of Zurich, which has always generously supported me in my involvement with the UN or the European Court of Human Rights. 

Finally, the prize comes at a special time for Swiss research in general: because the Swiss government has broken off negotiations on a framework agreement with the EU, access for Swiss researchers in Europe is restricted. So this prize comes at just the right time: It should show the academics in Switzerland that we should nevertheless continue to work on European topics and that our voice is and can be heard in Europe.

 

Q.: Your work has focused on such diverse areas of jurisprudence; you have written extensively on issues pertaining to federal as well international law, and on topics ranging from the death penalty to environmental law. What would you say are your main areas of academic interest and why?

H.K.: There are two big themes that have always interested me in my research. One is the question of how to encourage and engage the law in the protection of certain groups or interests that are a priori badly protected. This concerns the research topics that revolve around human rights and environmental protection. The second theme deals with the clash of different legal masses, be it international law on national law or soft law on hard law. I have examined how courts deal with these situations.

 

“As a researcher, I always thought that the courts would write a judgment as if it were a scientific essay. But when you take part in deliberations, you see that the passing of a judgment is a process influenced by various opinions.”

 

Q.: Since the early 2000s you established yourself as a scholar of law, serving as visiting scholar at various academic institutions. Additionally, you have served as judge at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) from 2011 to 2020 and you now serve as judge at the Constitutional Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina. How has this interplay between theory and practice throughout your career impacted your work and your mindset as a scholar and as a judge? 

H.K.: Once you have sat on a bench, you certainly read judgments differently. As a researcher, I always thought that the courts would write a judgment as if it were a scientific essay, that the text would be a unified whole. But when you take part in deliberations, you see that the passing of a judgment is a process influenced by various opinions. Often compromises need to be made in order to win over enough judges for the majority. Sometimes compromises are made that are not always advantageous for the coherence of the text. When I go over judgements today, I recognise these fractures and I will try to pass on this knowledge to my students.

 

Q.: What are the greatest achievements of the ECtHR that come to mind from your time as judge there? Any particular court cases that stuck with you throughout the years? 

H.K.: The Court fulfills a very important task: it repeatedly reminds the 47 states of their obligations to protect human rights and democracy. The Court has to do this in a very difficult environment, as there are many states with unstable democratic structures that regularly trample on basic human rights.  

One case that has forever tainted my memory is ‘El-Masri v. Northern Macedonia.’ The complainant in this case had the misfortune of having a very similar name to a man who was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States. That is why the Macedonian security forces mistakenly arrested him at the behest of the CIA and then handed him over to the CIA. He was later forcibly transferred to Kabul, Afghanistan, where he was tortured for several months. In this judgement, the Court ruled in favour of the complainant, addressing for the first time the secret renditions and the secret prisons in Europe after 9/11. This was a taboo-breaking case, which was very important for the upholding of human rights in Europe. 

 

Intersecting Law & Climate Change

 

“Climate change is where my two research topics come together. On the one hand, there is the question of how we can better protect the environment against exploitation; on the other hand, different bodies of law collide and need to be harmonized.”

 

Q.: Climate change is a multifactorial problem that has far-reaching consequences in different aspects of human life. In a broad sense, how is the field of law and the different judicial systems in Europe being impacted by climate change?

H.K.: Climate change is where my two research topics that I mentioned earlier come together. On the one hand, there is the question of how we can better protect the environment, the ecosystem and the climate, which we have used more or less for free for so many centuries, against exploitation. On the other hand, different bodies of law collide and need to be consolidated/harmonized: international and national law, hard law and soft law (e.g. voluntary commitments by companies) and administrative law and human rights.

 

Q.: What is the link between climate change and human rights? In a recent article you say that, when dealing with cases related to climate change, courts must be careful not to behave like activists, as this could jeopardize the legitimacy and reputation of a court. Why is this?

H.K.: We face a major gap in international law to combat global warming. Although there are more or less binding requirements for states to reduce CO2 emissions, we do not have an international body that would review violations of these obligations. This is where human rights come into play. In various countries, individuals file lawsuits against states (sometimes also against large international corporations such as Shell), claiming that their human rights have been violated because the state has done too little to combat global warming. This is the link between global warming and human rights. Because the latter are secured regionally and internationally by various judicial bodies (such as the Inter-American Court of Justice, the ECtHR, the Human Rights Council etc.), these people hope to succeed in the fight against global warming.

However, courts have to be careful. If judges want to force something that society is not ready for, courts risk having their legitimacy questioned. That ultimately also means that their judgement will then not be accepted and implemented.

 

“Climate disputes exist all over the world. We often focus on North America and Europe, but a lot is happening in Asia and Africa in this area. I think we can learn from each other.”

 

Q.: The number of lawsuits linked to climate change has grown exponentially in the last years. For instance, on 29 April 2021, the German Federal Constitutional Court, following a complaint brought by young climate activists, held the 2019 German Federal Climate Change Act as partially unconstitutional. What do you think about this decision? 

H.K.: I consider the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court to be courageous and forward-looking, in the truest sense of the word. After all, the Federal Constitutional Court not only looked at the current situation for the climate and for the young applicants but said that it is important for politics to keep an eye on a period that goes beyond the current generation. Here we are facing an important problem in legal dogmatics: how do we protect the concerns and rights of future generations? The Federal Constitutional Court’s statement that politics must still enable these young complainants to have a life worth living in around 30 years’ time and beyond is an important step in the right direction. 

 

Q.: What can your research with the Climate Rights and Remedy Project at the University of Zurich tell us about such cases?

H.K.: The first phase is to show that these climate disputes exist all over the world. We often focus on North America and Europe, but a lot is happening in Asia and Africa in this area. I think we can learn from each other. 

Web portal of the Climate Rights and Remedies Project coordinated by Prof. Helen Keller at the University of Zurich

In a second phase, we will focus more on the content of the cases: How do the courts deal with questions of admissibility that arise in these climate lawsuits in a very specific and new way, e.g. who can look after the interests of future generations? How do the judges deal with the great technicality of the questions and the scientific data situation? And finally, what impact do these judgments have on improving the environmental situation in reality? 

—

Professor Helen Keller received the Madame de Staël Prize on 6 November 2021 in a hybrid event during the Berlin Science Week, where she also delivered an interactive lecture relevant to her research at the Climate Rights and Remedies Project. You may read our summary of the event here and watch the full livestream here.

Subscribe to the ALLEA newsletter for future updates.

Future of Science Communication Conference: Moving Forward Research & Practice

/in , , /by

How can we connect research and practice in the science communication field? How can science communication help make science more trustworthy? What lessons have we learned on the relationship between science and politics during the Covid-19 pandemic? Over 1000 participants joined two days of digital discussions and workshops to tackle these and more questions at the Future of Science Communication Conference.

After a year of planning and curating, the event took place in digital format on 24-25 June, co-organised by ALLEA and Wissenschaft im Dialog, the organisation for science communication in Germany and funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research within the scope of Germany’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union.

The international conference brought together actors from research and practice of science communication. Its goal was to sensitise the various stakeholders from science, science communication and politics to the respective challenges and to provide an impetus for stronger networking and transfer between the ‘science of science communication’ and European practitioner communities.

Attendees could enjoy three keynotes and six panels, participate in ten workshops and attend three lightning talk sessions, a poster session and a matching session. All sessions were related to one of five topics: Science & Politics, Trust in Science, Target Groups of Science Communication, Open Science & Citizen Science, and Fake News & Disinformation.

“We are at a Fork in the Road moment in science communication.” – Mike Schäfer (University of Zurich)

From Science Communication to Trust in Science

Day one started with welcoming words from Thomas Rachel MdB (Parliamentary State Secretary at the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research) and the ALLEA President Antonio Loprieno, before featuring two keynotes by Mike Schäfer (University of Zurich) and the Chief Scientific Advisor to the European Commission Nicole Grobert (University of Oxford), who shared input from their scientific and political perspectives.

Schäfer presented an overall analysis of the science communication field with three main questions: how can we move forward, what is going well, what is not going so well. His take-home message was to recognise that science communication is in a “Fork in the Road” moment. Institutions, scientists and communicators should work together to push forward and scale up the synergies between practice and research. For instance, he proposed to increase “inreach” into science: motivate, train, support, valorize and sensitize scientists for societal demands.

The Chief Scientific Advisor Nicole Grobert added a science advice perspective to the discussion and provided insights on how to communicate emergency and strategic science advice. Particularly, she suggested to follow four key questions when communicating science advice for policy:

  • What we know
  • What we don’t know
  • What is uncertain
  • What cannot be known

The discussions continued in the afternoon with the panel “Trust in Science: nurtured, built or earned?”, moderated by Dr. Birte Fähnrich (Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences/Zeppelin University) and with speakers Rainer Bromme (University of Münster), Maria Baghramian (University College Dublin/PERITIA), John Besley (Michigan State University) and Tracey Brown (Sense About Science).

The debate focussed on how to create a concept of trust in science useful for science communication. Speakers debated how to frame such debate for practical approaches, from focusing on the causes of distrust to understand the importance of trustworthiness in science. Their advice to the science communicators was:

  • Make the right questions about science (Brown).
  • Talk about your honesty, good intentions, competence (Besley).
  • Explain the process of science (Baghramian).
  • Foster epistemic trust (Broome).

“The infodemic in fact preceded the Covid-19 pandemic by many years” – Cissi Askwall (VA Public & Science)

Are we living an “infodemic”?

The second day was kicked off by our third keynote speaker, Cissi Askwall, sharing her perspectives from science communication practice, who argued that the “infodemic in fact preceded the Covid-19 pandemic by many years”.

Friday’s first panel “Fake News & Disinformation: A pandemic of its own?” developed further this question. The debate featured Natali Helberger (University of Amsterdam), Dan Larhammar (ALLEA/Royal Swedish Academy) and Philipp Lorenz-Spreen (Max Planck Institute for Human Development) and was moderated by journalist Kai Kupferschmidt. Panellists discussed digital media literacy and the importance of including schools in the debate on fake news. Lorenz-Spreen added: “We cannot rely on the idea that with the next generation and digital natives problems with fake news will disappear. We can see even university students today can be victims of fake news.”

In a pre-recorded impulse video, Dietram A. Scheufele (University of Wisconsin-Madison) challenged common wisdom on the relevance of disinformation in today’s science communication debates: “There is very limited social scientific evidence, if any, to suggest that misinformation directly connects to more pro-social behaviours, for instance, physical distancing or getting vaccines when available”. The moderator Kupferschmidt provided additional thought-provoking ideas and key takeaways on a Twitter thread:

Friday also featured a panel discussion on science and politics moderated by ALLEA President Antonio Loprieno. The panel included Prof. Dr. Antje Boetius (Alfred Wegener Institute), Dr. Janusz Bujnicki (International Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology in Warsaw), Prof. Dr. Ortwin Renn (Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies Potsdam) and Dr. Bella Starling (Vocal / Wellcome Engagement Fellow / Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust). A key question that centred the debate was: What do policymakers want from scientists? Ortwin Renn had some suggestions:

In the final panel discussion, panellists touched on the question whether there is a gap between research and practice in science communication. Brian Trench (Dublin City University/PCST Network) asked whether instead we are overstressing this disconnection between the science of science communication and science communication practice. He also presented his manifesto for a future of science communication that is authentic, engaged, open, surprising, uncertain, ethical, inclusive, unfinished and interpreting.

“Science Communication is about interpreting the meaning of science for people” – Brian Trench (Dublin City University/PCST Network)

SAPEA and PERITIA workshops

Two ALLEA projects also found space in the programme. The workshop “Communicating microplastics risk: Balancing sensation and reflection” was hosted by SAPEA and featured Bart Koelmans (University of Wageningen), Sabine Pahl (University of Vienna), Lesley Henderson (Brunel University) and Toby Wardman (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies).

Additionally, our PERITIA colleagues organized two workshops, “Trust in science in social surveys: challenges, measurement and case studies” and “Using experiments to fight science disinformation online: an evidence-based guide”. The first workshop provided an overview on the nuances and complexity of measuring trust in science across countries and different contexts.

The second workshop led by Carlo Martini (PERITIA) offered an overview on strategies to tackle disinformation attempts with the use of attention and monetary incentives interventions on social media. The contribution of John Cook (Monash University) brought additional perspectives on the use of gamification to foster critical thinking. Read more about this on our interview with him at the ALLEA Digital Salon.

 

For further reading on the contents of the conference, you can find the summaries of Day 1 and Day 2 published at the German science communication portal Wissenschaftskommunition. More documentation will be published in the coming months. If you want to receive future updates, subscribe to the ALLEA newsletter.

 

European Coordination Needed to Fight Science Disinformation, Academies Say

/in , /by

In a new report, ALLEA examines the potential of technical and policy measures to tackle science disinformation and calls for improved European exchange and coordination in this field.

While disinformation strategies are intoxicating public discourses in many fields, science disinformation is particularly dangerous to democratic governance and society at large. As highlighted by the ongoing pandemic, an undermining of trust in science poses a fundamental threat to political and individual decisions based on evidence and scientific knowledge.

Over the past years, extensive research and a variety of strategies have been developed and applied to tackle science disinformation. ALLEA’s paper reviews this work, focusing on the roots and consequences of this multi-dimensional phenomenon, as well as practical solutions for policy, technology and communication.

“The science race against Covid-19 has not only been in the search for a vaccine. Another major risk has mobilised researchers: science disinformation. This report identifies key pathways to counter this ‘infodemic’ in future global crises. Seeing these problems unfolding in our societies, we need an institutionalised and coordinated strategy to galvanise researchers, communicators, and policymakers into action as early as possible”, says ALLEA President Antonio Loprieno.

The authors discuss the most prominent psychological, technical and political strategies to counter science disinformation, including inoculation, debunking, recommender systems, fact-checking, raising awareness, media literacy, as well as innovations in science communication and public engagement.

Following an analysis of the consequences of science disinformation in climate change, vaccine hesitancy and pandemics, the report concludes with a series of recommendations. The authors call for:

  • a stronger focus on communicating how science works and more dialogue in science communication practices,
  • a serious engagement with the public when exercising or communicating research,
  • valuing the virtue of intellectual humility when communicating scientific evidence,
  • the maintenance of good research practices and high ethical standards to ensure integrity and trustworthiness,
  • accountable, honest, transparent, tailored and effective science advice mechanisms.

To implement these proposals, the authors advise to establish a European Centre/Network for Science Communication and a European Code of Conduct for Science Communication.

“Even though there seems to be widespread awareness of the problems and harm caused by   disinformation, there is still no coordinated European effort to respond to this with increased and better science communication. While mechanisms of science advice for policy have been introduced on different levels to bridge the gap between scientists and policymakers, no central pan-European mechanism or institution is in place to coordinate existing initiatives and develop coherent guidelines and recommendations on science communication in an inclusive manner”, the authors argue.

The discussion paper will be presented and debated at the upcoming scientific symposium ‘Across Boundaries in Sciences’, held online on 5 May, during the 2021 ALLEA General Assembly. Registration is still open at: https://alleageneralassembly.org/

Download the report here and learn more about ALLEA’s Fact or Fake Project.