Get out, get out, get out of the ivory tower, which is still all too powerful and serves as a refuge for elite scholars.

Before the pandemic, this call could be heard in many places.

In the meantime the tide has turned.

Whether in interviews, talk shows or social media, scientists are omnipresent in public.

They explain, classify, predict and serve as a guide for politicians.

Science no longer sits in the ivory tower, it sits in the lighthouse.

But anyone who thinks the world is in order now is wrong.

The solidarity between politics and science is seen quite critically.

The statements made by scientists are not always satisfactory to the public.

It is criticized that some theses are too vague, contradict each other or even have to be revoked.

There is talk of an illegitimate rule by experts or of a science that overstretches its competencies and recommends measures without taking responsibility for them.

Demarcation between science and politics

How does this gap between the navigation expected of a lighthouse and the smoke candles perceived come about? It is the demarcation between science and politics that does not succeed here. The preliminary sad highlight is the unspeakable headline in the December 4, 2021 issue of the “Bild” newspaper “The lockdown makers”, because this statement is based on a problematic understanding of the relationship between science and politics. In the political sense, scientists are not shapers or decision-makers. Only the democratically legitimized representatives of the people have the reins of action in their hands. They set goals, set priorities, take into account the social mood, weigh up values ​​and beliefs and also take scientific knowledge into account.

But, one could argue, doesn't that mean that scientists at least have a special responsibility for the policy decisions that so directly influence them?

No, even in these cases their responsibility is limited to the quality of their scientific statements.

Of course, they have to point out the uncertainties and limits of their own subject, their own expertise and, above all, the published knowledge.

No interests other than gaining knowledge

They have to disclose and communicate their methods if one cannot yet speak of a consolidated state of knowledge because there is a lack of reliable studies or detailed internal scientific discourses. However, this responsibility is neither new nor unusual for scientists, but rather a logical consequence of the generally recognized rules of good scientific practice and good scientific communication. If the actors violate this, they can be criticized without being accused of being hostile to science. And it goes without saying that personal vanity must not become the driving force behind one's own actions, even in the case of scientists.

As a consequence, the distorted role attribution is, one might almost say, followed by a questionable treatment of scientists by the media, just as it was before with politicians: Statements are shortened or taken out of context, and people are defamed. It would be understandable, but fatal, if scientists, because of unbearable disrespect, found their way back into the ivory tower. We should encourage and respect them as they continue to act as advisors in the public arena, so that science remains at least one of several parameters for policymakers' actions. Otherwise, the field is left to representatives from business, religion, culture, civil society and other areas,who continuously and as a matter of course loudly influence political decision-makers in order to give emphasis to their interests. Science, on the other hand, pursues no other interests than gaining knowledge. We are all well advised to look at the light of the lighthouse.

The author is rector of the University of Düsseldorf.