ALLEA and the German science communication organisation Wissenschaft im Dialog organised an international conference on the Future of Science Communication last June. Videos and graphic recordings of the sessions are now available.
Funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research, the event brought together different approaches from research and practice to science communication. Experts debated the trade-offs and latest developments of this field in an age of great transformations and crises where science plays a defining role.
Climate change, the Covid-19 pandemic, disinformation, target audiences, citizen science or science advice were some of the guiding themes of two days of keynotes, debates, workshops, lighting talks, and a virtual poster exhibition. A closing panel discussion invited leading experts to provide their advice on how to shape the future of the field.
More than 1000 registered participants attended the conference and provided an impetus for stronger networking and further transfer of activities from research to practice and viceversa. Most of the sessions were recorded via Zoom and recorded graphically by illustrator Lorna Schütte.
[metaslider id=”8629″]
Further documentation will be available in the coming months, but in the meantime you can already read a summary with some take-home messages of the conference, as well as reports on the Day 1 and Day 2 of the event published on the German science communication portal wissenschaftskommunikation.de.
https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Final_panel_discussion.jpg14602048Susana Irleshttps://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/allea-30-logo-300x90.pngSusana Irles2021-08-09 16:56:292021-09-28 14:15:26Videos and Illustrations of Science Communication Conference Available
US linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky delivered the keynote “The University at Times of Crisis” as part of the international conference “Academic Freedom and Intellectual Dissent” co-organised by Scholars at Risk and ALLEA on 8 June.
In his keynote, Chomsky reflected on the crisis and privatisation of universities and academic institutions. He advocated for enabling the scientific community to make use of research funds without the intervention of politicians or donors.
He pointed out to this underlying tension within academic institutions as one of key aspects impeding the scientific community to reach an ideal of academic freedom. “Looking over the centuries, the ideal has often been uphill, but it has been a constant battle to try to sustain it in the face of external, social, economic and ideological pressures”, he argued.
He also challenged the idea of attributing the drivers of innovation and discovery in today’s societies to private businesses’ risk-taking. “This doctrine is mostly myth. Most of this work takes place in the public sector with public funding”, he stated.
The conference focussed on the importance of intellectual dissent and academic freedom to democratic societies in a Western, particularly European, context. The speakers and the panel discussed the scope and the limits of academic freedom in the context of political populism, neoliberalism and the exigencies of the post Covid social and educational landscape.
Topics of the event included but were not limited to academic freedom in relation to other core academic values, e.g. openness, trustworthiness, research integrity, and social responsibility; the scope and limits of intellectual dissent and academic freedom; ways of strengthening academic freedom in a changing university funding landscape, the impact of social media on academic freedom and lessons from a global pandemic.
The full video of the events and the programme can be accessed on this webpage.
https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Academic-Freedom-Conference-web.png6001200Susana Irleshttps://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/allea-30-logo-300x90.pngSusana Irles2021-07-19 14:32:152021-09-03 10:11:50Noam Chomsky on Academic Freedom and Intellectual Dissent
Dr John Cook (Monash University) is an award-winning scientist and cartoonist who fights climate misinformation with humour and critical thinking. He is also the creative mind behind the Cranky Uncle, a “male, older, white, and politically conservative” caricature of those who are dismissive of climate science according to psychological research. His acclaimed book “Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change” and game app expose misleading techniques of science denial and offer tools to build public resilience against misinformation. His work has not only been used in schools, but he has recently developed a project to counter climate disinformation with Facebook, jointly with other researchers.
He will be one of the contributors to the workshop “Using experiments to fight science disinformation online: an evidence-based guide” at the Future of Science Communication Conference organised by ALLEA and Wissenschaft im Dialog on 24-25 June. Ahead of this conference, he offers some tips and insights on how to combat misinformation in the science communication and education fields.
Question: “Cranky Uncle vs Climate Change” is the name of your book and the game you developed which brings together climate science and dealing with misinformation. Where does this name come from and what is your tip as a first step to dealing with a “cranky uncle” in our real personal lives?
John Cook: Psychological research finds that people who are dismissive of climate science are more likely to be male, older, white, and politically conservative. Cranky Uncle is the embodiment of that demographic type. And anecdotally, almost everyone has a family member, friend or colleague who captures that “cranky uncle” personality type. My first tip in dealing with your own cranky uncle is to recognise that the odds of actually changing their mind is very small, so don’t get frustrated if you don’t make much headway in your conversations. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t engage with them however. Often the beneficiaries of such conversations are not our cranky uncle but everyone else witnessing the exchange. That’s the purpose of the Cranky Uncle book and game – not necessarily changing our cranky uncle’s mind but inoculating everyone else against his misinformation.
“The purpose of the Cranky Uncle book and game is not necessarily changing our cranky uncle’s mind but inoculating everyone else against his misinformation”.
Q.: You wrote a paper on “which counters misinformation better: facts or logic?” concluding that logic outperformed facts in your study. How can we translate these findings for practitioners of science communication?
J.C.: The key thing that science communicators need to realise is facts are vulnerable to being cancelled out by misinformation. When people are confronted with conflicting pieces of information and they have no way of resolving the conflict, the risk is they disengage and don’t internalize our factual explanation. Our research found that if we explain the facts to people then they afterwards encounter misinformation casting doubt on the facts, the misinformation cancels out the facts. However, logic-based corrections that explain how the misinformation misleads is not vulnerable in the same way – the positive effect from logic-based corrections are not affected by misinformation. What I recommend is when we explain the facts, we also explain how misinformation can distort our facts. This is like wrapping bubble wrap around our facts to keep them safe as we send them out into a world filled with misinformation.
“If we explain the facts to people then they afterwards encounter misinformation casting doubt on the facts, the misinformation cancels out the facts.”
Q.: The Cranky Uncle game has found users all over the world, but can it be used equally effectively everywhere, or can cultural differences in communication and science communication influence how to handle misinformation?
J.C.: Currently the Cranky Uncle game is only available in English so obviously that does make it less relevant to the non-English speaking world. Even so, I was surprised to see the game being picked up in a number of European countries and hope to see that trend increase once the game is available in other languages. We are currently in the process of translating the game into German – our first test of the translation procedure. Once that process is worked out, we’ll begin translating into other languages (we’ve had volunteers approach us to translate the game into around a dozen languages and more volunteers are always welcome). There are some language difficulties in translating parts of the game from English. For example, we talk about the ambiguity fallacy, where words with double meanings can be exploited in order to mislead people. Unfortunately, words with double meanings vary across different languages so we’ve been exploring creative ways to tackle this issue. We’ve also discussed adding new cartoons for new languages. For example, a cartoon of Neal deGrasse Tyson features in the current game, as an example of a famous astrophysicist from the United States. We’re exploring incorporating the German equivalent of Neal deGrasse Tyson – an astrophysicist who is well-known in Germany.
Q.: For our Future of Science Communication Conference, we have also focused on battling science disinformation. Have you observed any trends in SciComm practice in recent years which have been particularly successful?
J.C.: The approach of using technology – particularly digital games – has exploded in recent years. Misinformation is nimble and adapts to new technologies and online platforms with disturbing rapidity. That means that science communicators need to be adaptive and innovative in our responses to misinformation. We’re dealing with a complex, ubiquitious problem which requires interdisciplinary solutions that can scale up to meet the huge challenge. Scientists need to be working with practitioners in other fields such as game and app development to develop technological solutions that can reach large proportions of the public. I am excited to see that this is already happening with a number of clever and engaging digital games springing up in response to the problem of misinformation.
“Misinformation is nimble and adapts to new technologies and online platforms with disturbing rapidity. That means that science communicators need to be adaptive and innovative in our responses to misinformation.”
Q.: You recently published a teachers’ guide for your game, and in the past you have authored textbooks for university students on climate change facts and denial. What have you learned from teachers who use your game in their classroom?
J.C.: It was enthusiasm from educators early in the game development that made me realize the classroom would likely be the venue where the game would make its biggest impact. Teachers are crying out for interactive resources that engage their students while strengthening their critical thinking skills. The other thing that struck me in my interaction with teachers has been their creativity in combining the Cranky Uncle game with classroom activities. One example is a delightful classroom assignment where students were assigned to write an email to their teacher, explaining using multiple logical fallacies why the teacher shouldn’t fail the student despite the fact that they hadn’t studied. This assignment is an elegant example of active inoculation, where students get inoculated against misleading fallacies by learning how to use the techniques of science denial. It is also an excellent opportunity for the students to practise humour and creativity, with some hilarious assignments!
“Teachers are crying out for interactive resources that engage their students while strengthening their critical thinking skills.”
Q.: Schools, universities, teachers seem to be natural partners to tackle science misinformation. In your experience, are they willing to join this “fight”? Is there enough understanding of the problem and/or resources to do this?
J.C.: On the one hand, a number of schools and universities have eagerly embraced the opportunity to teach critical thinking and build resilience against misinformation. On the other hand, there are many more schools and teachers that are already so time-crunched, they struggle to fit extra content into their classes. It is important that more resources be developed that make it easier for teachers to incorporate these kinds of activities in their classes, while meeting their curriculum requirements. We also need to build awareness among educators of the powerful benefits of “misconception-based learning” (also known as agnotology-based learning) – teaching students by directly addressing misconceptions and misinformation. This doesn’t need to be seen as negative or combative – rather, it’s an opportunity to combine the teaching of facts with critical thinking (or from a psychological perspective, combining fact-based and logic-based communication). This type of education shows stronger learning gains which last longer than standard lessons – it’s a powerful form of education.
“We need to build awareness among educators of the powerful benefits of “misconception-based learning” (also known as agnotology-based learning) – teaching students by directly addressing misconceptions and misinformation.”
https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/photo_cold-web.jpg5341200Susana Irleshttps://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/allea-30-logo-300x90.pngSusana Irles2021-06-23 12:45:462021-08-03 16:51:52“When We Explain the Facts, We Should Also Explain How Misinformation Can Distort Our Facts”
On 3 June, ALLEA, EASAC and FEAM co-organised an online discussion event to present the results of their first tripartite collaboration, in which they join forces to explore how barriers for sharing personal health data outside the EU/EEA for research in the public sector can be resolved. The joint report was be presented by the lead experts and then discussed with relevant stakeholders in a panel discussion.
Event Agenda
Introduction and presentation of academy networks
Welcome by Professor Christina Moberg, President of EASAC
Presentation of the project
Chair: Professor Antonio Loprieno, President of ALLEA
Why we did this project together; what is the value of international health research and what may now be lost – Rosa Castro, FEAM Policy Officer
Main findings from the project – Professor Giske Ursin, Cancer Registry of Norway; and Dr Heidi Beate Bentzen, University of Oslo
Panel discussion
Chair: Professor George Griffin, President of FEAM and co-chair of the working group
Short interventions followed by questions and discussion
Professor Robert Eiss, US National Institutes of Health
Brendan Barnes, EFPIA – European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations
Gözde Susuzlu Briggs, Data Saves Lives/European Patients’ Forum
Professor Christiane Woopen, Professor of Ethics and Theory of Medicine, chair EGE
Alisa Vekeman, European Commission, DG Justice
Summary and closing remarks
Professor Volker ter Meulen, co-chair of the working group
https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Screenshot_3.png418609Joséphine Dusolhttps://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/allea-30-logo-300x90.pngJoséphine Dusol2021-06-10 14:57:352021-08-03 16:52:43Watch Recording: Webinar on “International Sharing of Personal Health Data for Research”
The boundaries of science have been increasingly pushed and pulled during the Covid-19 pandemic, shaking our understanding of science not only within the scientific system, but in relation to politics and society in general. In this evolving scenario, ALLEA and the Council of Finnish Academies hosted an international scientific symposium online on 5 May 2021.
Featuring a wide range of international perspectives from research, politics, and civil society, speakers shared and discussed their latest insights on this complex topic. The recordings are now online and available to watch (see the playlist below, or click here).
Dr. Robin Fears, one of the lead authors of the ALLEA/EASAC/FEAM report “International sharing of personal health data for research”, answers questions about the importance of science advice, the key messages of the joint report, and its implications for international medical research and European citizens. He has a background in biochemistry and almost three decades of Research and Development experience in the pharmaceutical industry in the UK. He is currently the Biosciences Programme Director at EASAC.
Question:Thank you for joining us in this interview for ALLEA’s Digital Salon. You are currently the Biosciences Programme Director for the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC). Can you explain to our readers how you became interested in science advice and what your current role entails?
Robin Fears: My interest in science advice began while I was working in pharmaceutical R&D where it was clear that success in research was dependent to a significant extent on the world outside the company. For example, there has to be a supportive public policy environment to encourage innovation and competitiveness, and engagement with research partners and other stakeholders was often essential to make the most of scientific investment and ensure its translation to novel products and services. It also became clear that various other bodies were similarly interested in the broader issues for strengthening the research enterprise and tackling societal priorities. Among the leaders in these respects, were academies of science and medicine.
On pursuing new career directions as a consultant, I found academies and their networks, with their convening powers and experience across multiple disciplines, were very receptive to initiatives to promote scientific collaboration and very committed to build the evidence base to help inform public policy, innovation and practice.
My current role for the Biosciences Programme is to provide advice and support to EASAC on a range of topics including biomedicine, food systems, biosecurity and emerging technologies, in order to tackle priorities for using the scientific evidence base to inform policy options in the EU [more details on that topic to be found here].
Q.: The Covid-19 pandemic has demonstrated the importance of international scientific collaboration, including sharing of personal health data. Why and how do good data sharing practices help scientific advancement?
R.F.: Health research produces considerable value for patients, helps to reduce health inequalities, supports development of health services and benefits society. It is often necessary to collaborate in research and to share data with other researchers in order to ensure sufficiently large sample sizes (particularly in rare diseases or subtypes of more common diseases), to identify complex pathways and improve diagnosis and treatment, thereby making the most of limited resources and of the contribution by patients and volunteers to research.
International sharing of data for research is often particularly important, for example to compare the determinants and outcomes of disease in different settings, to assess whether findings in other countries are also applicable to patients in Europe, to develop new areas of health research, such as artificial intelligence, and to capitalise on the emergence of new big data sets.
At the same time, it is essential to provide appropriate protections for personal data privacy, that is to ensure that data sharing procedures are safe and secure. The vital focus on personal data privacy is itself pivotal to supporting research because it helps to build patient trust and involvement in research.
Q.: Why is this important that ALLEA, FEAM and EASAC are working together on this topic?
R.F.: This project is the first tripartite collaboration between ALLEA, EASAC and FEAM. All three academy networks had previously worked on issues for using research data for public benefit and for protecting personal privacy. We came together in this project to facilitate the inclusion of the necessarily wide range of disciplines and experience from across medicine, ethics, health informatics and the social sciences, together with discussion with other stakeholders (including patients and health companies). Although the academy networks have collaborated previously through SAPEA (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies, part of the European Commission’s Scientific Advice Mechanism), because of the urgency to provide evidence-based advice and the important implications for many institutions and countries, ALLEA, EASAC and FEAM decided to proceed expeditiously, using their own resources to generate consensus recommendations.
Q.: The report explores how the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) hampers the sharing of personal health data with researchers outside the EU/EEA (European Economic Area). At first sight, this could seem like a technical problem that only affects scientists, policymakers and legislators working in this specific area. Can you explain, in simple terms, the current challenges for international medical collaborations, how this affects European citizens, and how they will benefit from the solutions proposed in the report?
R.F.: The inception of the GDPR had been welcomed by academies because of its recognition of the importance of encouraging the sharing of data for health research. However, this has not happened internationally because of disparity between EU legislation and the legislation of other countries. Unfortunately, since GDPR implementation, problems in sharing data with researchers outside the EU/EEA have increased. These problems affect both the direct transfer of data and remote access by foreign researchers to data at its original location. The impediments create major difficulties for the EU/EEA both with regard to the continuation of previous international research studies and to the initiation of new studies. For example, for just one partner, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), it was estimated (in 2019) that more than 5,000 collaborative projects with EU/EEA countries were affected. Research sharing with major international bodies, such as WHO, is also stalled.
Currently, when other countries do not have protection procedures equivalent to the EU (adequacy) there is no workable mechanism for international sharing of health data for public sector research purposes.
While the impact of GDPR implementation on sharing personal data has been discussed in the last few years, the focus has mainly been on the problems for the private sector and the greater problems for public sector researchers have been neglected.
This affects science in Europe and worldwide. As noted in the previous answer, international sharing is crucially important to improve health and health systems and, more generally, reinforces social cohesion and stability. Science is a global endeavour. Less global sharing of data for health research is hurting everyone – patients, researchers, public health systems and society as a whole – and we risk losing the collective capacity to deliver the value of health research that has been a great European strength.
Q.: The GDPR has been implemented to protect the privacy of citizens by giving them more control over who is storing, using, and sharing their personal information. Especially in the context of health data, we are talking about extremely sensitive information. How can we ensure international medical research flourishes, while at the same time guaranteeing the privacy of the European research participants, also when their data is shared with non-EU/EEA countries?
R.F.: There are strong European protections for patients and volunteers when participating in research, for example through the statutory activities of research ethics bodies. Rapid advances in privacy-enhancing technologies will also help to provide a secure environment for data. With regard to the current impediments associated with the GDPR, the pressing need is to find a simple operational solution respectful of fundamental rights that does not conflict with other countries’ laws or with the regulations of international organisations.
Our preferred option to overcome the current barriers is to find an operational solution under Article 46 of the GDPR. Our recommendations examine how best to do this for the EU/EEA and in the broader context of the EU leading discussions worldwide to ensure privacy protection.
Our report starts with the principle that data must be shared safely and efficiently – this is part of the responsible conduct of research – and we must take account of patient views. We emphasise that strong pseudonymisation procedures (data for which identifiable information fields are replaced by codes or identifier with the key to the code kept securely and separately from the other data) are essential for sharing data. Pseudonymisation and other supplementary measures, ensure the privacy of individuals is preserved when sharing data with other researchers.
Q.: The report has been published online on 8 April on the websites of all three academy networks. What do you envision will be the next steps in resolving the aforementioned challenges in international sharing of personal health data and what will be the role of the ALLEA/FEAM/EASAC collaboration in this?
R.F.: Following publication of our report, all three networks are working to disseminate our messages at EU/EEA and national levels, to engage with policy makers, to inform the wider scientific community, and to encourage our member academies in their own countries to raise the visibility of the problems and the urgency to find a solution.
Additionally, continuing monitoring and assessment of the issues is needed, because of the fast-changing environment, technology developments, other country initiatives on data sharing, the momentum favouring open science and data, and new opportunities and needs in health care and disease prevention. We recommend development of an inter-disciplinary mechanism for the continuing monitoring of these developments, which can also serve to reinforce communication of the value and opportunities for personal data sharing for health research. Academies and their networks can have a core role in these continuing activities, for example by encouraging discussion with academic and other research institutions and research funders and with patients and other stakeholders.
We acknowledge that even when appropriate mechanisms for transferring data are established, there are other methodological and technical quality issues that need resolving to enable interoperability in the use of data. Privacy-enhancing technologies are relevant in offering potential to improve data security but their use does not circumvent the requirements of the GDPR.
The GDPR has become a privacy standard that other countries seek to follow. Therefore, the EU can take a lead role in wider, global, discussions about the value of health research, privacy rules and the free movement of data, including options for reforming regulations in other countries for reciprocity in data sharing.
As part of our dissemination and engagement efforts we are organising a public webinar to catalyse further discussion and action. The details will be announced soon.
https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Health-Data-Transfer-01.jpg10422084Joséphine Dusolhttps://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/allea-30-logo-300x90.pngJoséphine Dusol2021-04-26 14:03:252021-08-03 16:54:34Sharing Matters: Why International Data Transfer is Crucial For Health Research
Bioengineering, virtual reality, autonomous systems and many other technologies enter into society and our daily lives with the potential to radically transform our work, health, environment, and even our privacy and personal interactions. To reconcile the needs of research and innovation and the concerns and aspirations of society, ethical and societal considerations should be grafted onto the thinking of research and development practices.
TechEthos is an EU-funded project that seeks to create ethics guidelines to deal with this type of new and emerging technologies with a high socio-economic impact. Eva Buchinger (Austrian Institute of Technology, AIT) is the lead coordinator of the project. In this interview, she presents the key concepts tackled by TechEthos and its expected impact. The project started in January 2021 and will run until the end of 2023.
Question: What are the aims and rationale of the TechEthos project?
Eva Buchinger:TechEthos aims to facilitate “ethics by design”, namely, to bring ethical and societal values into the design and development of new and emerging technologies from the very beginning of the process.The project will provide ethics guidelines for 3-4 selected technologies. To reconcile the needs of research and innovation and the concerns of society, the project will explore the awareness, acceptance and aspirations of academia, industry and the general public alike.
TechEthos aims to facilitate “ethics by design”.
Q.: What kind of technologies are you looking at and why? Can you give one example and describe why their ethics dimensions are so significant?
E. B.: We will be looking atnew and emerging technologies with a high socio-economic impact and significant ethics dimensions. That is, part of our work will be identifying technologies that are socially, economically and ethically (potentially) disruptive.
“Disruption” is thereby understood as a generic term, referring to asignificant change, may it be positive or negative.We will decide whichhigh-impact technologies we will focus onin TechEthosat the end of the project’s first phase in July 2021. This decision will be informed by a horizon scanning process consisting of a meta-analysis combined with an expert–based impact assessment. We will consider a broad set of technologies ranging from bioengineering to cognitive technologies and smart materials.
As fornow,TechEthos understands the “ethics dimension” as relating to fundamental principles such as human rights, privacy and autonomy as well as specific concerns related to health, environment and human interactions.
Q.: What kind of impact does the project expect to have for policy and the research community?
E. B.: TechEthos is explicitly designed to serve researchers from academia and industry, research ethics committees and research integrity bodies, and governance agents such as standardization bodies, regulators, and policymakers. This will be achieved by developingoperational guidelines and codes and other ethical tools, engaging in the process with a wide rangeof ethical codes and guidelines for the target technologiesthat currently exist. This will serve as the basis for constructive interpretation and guide the determinationof how to enhance existing frameworks or supplement existing practices with new guidelines.
The goal is to create a set of principles that are action-oriented for the above-mentioned users.Given the wide range of possible technologies, it is impossible to fully anticipate how the variouscodes or guidelines will be constructed in advance.However, the methodology we are adopting issufficiently flexible to accommodate a variety of scenarios.
TechEthos is explicitly designed to serve researchers, ethics bodies, andpolicymakers.
Q.: Who is involved and why is this the best consortium to achieve the project’s aims?
E. B.: The TechEthos consortium benefits from the diversity of its partners as well as approaches. The project consists of ten scientific partners and six science engagement organisations representing 14 countries from all over Europe. The project will additionally involve a broad range of stakeholders from academia, industry, policy, and civil society. These stakeholders will contribute through interactive formats such as interviews, surveys, workshops, scenario exercises and games, and exhibitions.
The scientific partners are universities (De Montfort University, Technische Universiteit Delft, Universiteit Twente);applied research institutions (Associazione per la RicercaIndustriale, Austrian Institute of Technology, CEA Commissariat à l’énergieatomique et aux énergies alternatives, Trilateral Research) and associations specialising in research ethics(ALLEA, the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities,EUREC European Network of Research Ethics Committees Office).
The science engagement organisations are supervised by ECSITE (Association européenne des expositions scientifiques techniques et industrielles) and located in six European countries (Science Center Network Austria, iQLANDIA Science Popularization Centre, Bucharest Science Festival, Centre for the Promotion of Science, Parque de las Ciencias, Vetenskap & Allmänhet Public & Science. All of them haveoutstanding expertise in dealing with ethics of new and emerging technologies.
The well-balanced composition of the consortium together with the project’s participative multi-stakeholder approach provides an excellant basis to achieve TechEthos’s aims.
Q.: What have been the best and worst moments in coordinating a collaborative H2020 project so far?
E. B.: The best experience in coordinating such a diverse consortium is to know that we are working with the top specialists in the field to reach our highly ambitious goals. The greatest challenge may be the unavoidable moments of utmost tension before this wonderful diverse pool of expertise and excellence synergizes into an operational solution.
https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Artificial-Intelligence.png5941040Susana Irleshttps://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/allea-30-logo-300x90.pngSusana Irles2021-04-21 12:43:502021-08-03 16:54:42How to Integrate Ethics into the Design of Disruptive Technologies
Against all odds, Austrian-born Lise Meitner devoted her life to a career in nuclear physics. On the occasion of the UN International Day of Women and Girls in Science, we look back on the achievements of a brilliant woman who many believe was once robbed of the Nobel Prize.
“It brings me great pleasure that with the election of your person in particular, esteemed Professor, the first woman has been elected to the ranks of the Academy’s membership since its founding.” The president of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW), Heinrich Ficker, wrote these words of congratulation in a letter dated 9 June 1948 to Lise Meitner, a physicist already famous beyond Austria’s borders, on her election to Corresponding Member Abroad for the Division of Mathematics and the Natural Sciences.
Lise Meitner was indeed the first female member of the Academy, which had been founded in 1847. As a woman and a Jew she was elected into an academy whose membership only three years prior had consisted of many members of the National Socialist party (NSDAP) (approximately 50%) and which had not significantly changed its composition since the NSDAP had been outlawed in 1945. In 1949, the same honour of being elected the first female member was conferred on her at the German Academy of Sciences in Berlin. A few years previously she had been elected to the Academies in Stockholm, Gothenburg, Copenhagen and Oslo. In 1955, she was named an External Member of the Royal Society, an honour that meant a great deal to her, and in 1960 this was followed by her election to membership of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
The grounds for Meitner’s election to the ÖAW were her fundamental research in the field of nuclear physics and her contribution to the study of nuclear fission. While in exile in Sweden over the New Year 1938/39, she had succeeded in explaining the physics behind the puzzling results of an experiment performed by her former Berlin colleagues Otto Hahn and Fritz Straßmann. When uranium was irradiated with neutrons, the radiochemical analysis revealed traces of the element barium. This indicated that the uranium atom had ‘split’ into lighter fragments, a result which the two chemists were unable to explain. Lise Meitner, together with her nephew Otto Robert Frisch, interpreted the reaction as nuclear fission and calculated the huge quantity of energy released in the process. Nevertheless, in 1946 Otto Hahn was the sole recipient of the 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry “for his discovery of the fission of heavy nuclei”.
That Lise Meitner’s involvement in this epoch-making scientific breakthrough was crucial, and yet recognition for it went instead to Hahn, can be considered a prime example of the lack of acknowledgement and visibility granted to women in science. It is particularly striking because Lise Meitner was nominated for the Nobel Prize a total of 48 times by colleagues – without success. That she went empty-handed in 1946 has been cited by the science historian Margaret W. Rossiter as paradigmatic of the unequal distribution of fame between women and their male colleagues. At one point Rossiter considered naming this phenomenon the ‘Lise Effect’, but instead decided on the ‘Matilda Effect’ – now the conventional term in the history of science – after Matilda Joslyn Gage (1826–1898), an American feminist and early sociologist of knowledge.
https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Lise_Meitner.png410600Susana Irleshttps://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/allea-30-logo-300x90.pngSusana Irles2021-02-12 13:11:242021-08-03 16:57:58Lise Meitner: “A Physicist Who Never Lost Her Humanity”
Today, the UN celebrates women and girls in science. Education, research and academia in general were traditionally male-dominated andthere is still a need for changebefore we can describe the field as gender neutral or equal. Academia today is not only lacking in women, but diversity in general. Yet, while we look forwardat how we can tackle current obstacles, it is also important to look back in history and see how the role of women in science has changed over the last centuries.
At the end of 2020, ALLEA published the third book in its series Discourses on Intellectual EuropeWomen in European Academies: From Patronae Scientiarum to Path-Breakers. Thisvolume shares the stories of thirteen women whose names have made a mark on academies in Europe. To take a closer look, we had the chance to ask historian Prof. Ute Frevert, Managing Director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, author, and one of the editors of this book some questions.
Question: In editing “Women in European Academies”, what did you learn or notice most commonly about the roles of women over the different countries and different disciplines?
Ute Frevert: It was quite remarkable (and distressing) to see how all over Europe, the academic world in every discipline has been reluctant and adversarial to accepting female scholars and scientists. This lasted way into the 20th century, and the arguments that buttressed male monopolies were very similar. At the same time, individual women were extremely smart in moving around such obstacles, with passion, tenacity, and, all too rarely, with the help of progressive parents, friends, and husbands.
Q.: Examining academia today, there are more women with on average better higher education degrees in Europe. Still, much fewer than men consider or achieve a career in academia. What changes have you been able to see in your career?
U.T.:I have been socialized in the feminist movement of the 1970s, and since then we have definitely seen some success and progress. Yet, progress is far too slow, compared to the efforts made and the large number of qualified women who would love to pursue an academic career. Among doctoral students, the gender ratio is more or less balanced now. But we still see very few women in top positions.
Q.: If asked why women belong in academia, why or how they can make a unique contribution, what would you say?
U.T.: Honestly speaking, women do not have to make a unique contribution. They belong in academia as much as men do, just because they are both human beings with smart brains. So, in principle, there is no need to further justify women’s place in academia. In real life, however, women often have to be better, more innovative and original than men in order to make it.
Q.: As an expert on emotions and history, what changes do you consider most relevant to these trends and emerging discourses on masculinity and feminism in society?
U.T.: From a historical perspective, first- and second-wave feminism was important because they challenged and finally altered the categories applying to male versus female bodies, brains, and behaviour. They questioned the long-held notion of separate spheres, and they empowered women to move on. Becoming mentally more independent, women developed pride as well as self-confidence – which are essential prerequisites for any career.
Q.: Looking forward, what would you like the role of women look like in academia?
U.T.: I would like to see many more women in top positions, as full professors, research group leaders, institute directors, and presidents of academies. Younger women need role models in order to develop ambition and stamina. At the same time, being a role model does not come easy, because of complex expectations. While men just have to excel academically, women at the top are supposed to be excellent in many more matters. They have to showemotional skills like “feminine” empathy, kindness, understanding in personal relationships. They have to be accessiblefor all kinds of problems. Having a family proves that they lead a full life and know about motherly and wifely commitment – something that is never requested from her male colleagues. Such gendered expectations are very hard to meet and can result in mutual frustration.
Prof. Ute Frevert is Director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin. Before joining the Institute in 2008, she taught modern history at the Universities of Berlin (FU), Konstanz, Bielefeld and Yale (USA). Her publications include: Women in German History (1989); Men of Honour: A Social and Cultural History of the Duel (1995); A Nation in Barracks: Modern Germany, Military Conscription, and Civil Society (2004); Emotions in History – Lost and Found (2013); The Politics of Humiliation: A Modern History (2020).
https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/women-in-science2.jpg400600Susana Irleshttps://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/allea-30-logo-300x90.pngSusana Irles2021-02-11 12:45:532021-08-03 16:58:10“Younger Women Need Role Models in order to Develop Ambition and Stamina”
How is the nature of knowledge changing? What is the impact of the digital revolution on the roles of universities, academies and science advisors? Is the democratisation of knowledge always a good thing?
Professor Antonio Loprieno, ALLEA President, discusses these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. They also discuss how to digitally unwrap an Egyptian mummy, whether there is such a thing as objective truth, and how loudly Toby can scream when his audio is muted.
https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/antonio-2.png4591209alleaadminhttps://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/allea-30-logo-300x90.pngalleaadmin2020-12-15 13:35:092021-08-03 16:59:28History and Future of Knowledge – Interview With ALLEA President
