“Scientists have to communicate more” is currently a demand from politics - at least in the perception of the scientific community.

This can be concluded from the funding guidelines of the BMBF and the recently published recommendations for action by the #FactoryWisskomm.

"According to the wishes of politicians, every researcher should bring his findings to the public" - this is how Marcel Knöchelmann puts it at this point and then holds against it: "But that would neither benefit society nor science."

Indeed, for various reasons, the demands of politics are viewed critically by parts of the scientific community. Some of the critics warned that, against the background of increasing demands on scientific institutions, it is hardly possible to make science communication compulsory without neglecting the core tasks, i.e. research and teaching.

Another part is more concerned about the headwind, about the harsh tone that scientists not only have to fear in these times, but also experience when they communicate. In view of the heated debates about corona or climate change, researchers - so the argument goes - should be protected more than put in the front row. Communication should be left to professionals. After all, one cannot expect everyone to be able to withstand these storms and hostility unmoved and confidently and at the same time still calmly explain what the results of science mean for society. That is why voices were increasingly loud calling forScience communication should only be carried out by bosses and professional press offices or so-called “scientific councils”.

This position misjudges the realities at German universities and research institutions and their possibilities of quasi-dirigistic control of their communication. Equally unrealistic is the opposing position that all women scientists have to be sent to the front of science communication.

The key question has not yet been named: What should be communicated? Only when this has been clarified do the questions of who and how arise. The classic communication of results of the type "Scientists have found out that ..." no longer works - the associated press releases go unheard far too often, the glossy color magazines fade unopened in the reading corner. It is therefore not sensible and undesirable to iron out science through professional and centrally controlled high-gloss communication.

What we need is science communication that conveys a realistic and honest picture of science and that is based on the knowledge gained by its target groups and not on the gain in reputation of the communicating institution.

Authentic insights into the world of science, its values, processes and methods must come directly from the laboratories, from those who do research.

They can best tell authentically and with great enthusiasm about finding out, questioning and researching an object.

Even if the results may be spectacular, communication will only be successful if the rocky road of science to the result can be credibly portrayed - and scientists are often best at that themselves.

Science communication as part of the training

Communication becomes even more successful if it can be made visible that research is laborious, that excellent and ultimately successful research often first explores many dead ends, it produces zero and negative results from which one learns and which can ultimately be the basis for success . Documenting zero and negative results and making them visible is an essential element of good scientific practice! Only in this way, directly from science, can the plurality and diversity of perspectives and positions in science be made visible, explained and justified. This is crucial in order to keep trust in science and research at a high level.