There is no getting around it, as the pandemic has shown: Politically committed citizens who want a well-founded picture of current social challenges need a minimum of knowledge about scientific relationships.
Anyone who speaks out against pandemic protection must know the possible medical consequences of an illness.
Anyone who finds climate protection too expensive must be informed about the risks of future extreme weather conditions.
However, this requirement encounters a dilemma: Our society functions to a high degree based on a division of labor. The scientific specialization based on years of training is necessary in order to be able to conduct sufficient in-depth research. At the same time, no non-scientist will be able to familiarize himself with all politically relevant scientific topics independently and from scratch within a reasonable time frame. Rather, it needs experts who share their knowledge.
Such experts went public last year to provide information about the scientific aspects of the pandemic.
This is not good for everyone.
A survey conducted by the journal Nature among publicly visible scientists found that more than two-thirds of those questioned had negative experiences after their appearances.
Fifteen percent reported death threats.
Even if the survey only included three hundred scientists and was not representative: the result sounds plausible.
Only scientists who are particularly visible in Germany, such as Christian Drosten or Hendrik Streeck, are aware of the threats and insults they were exposed to in the past year.
Scientists want to communicate facts, so hatred hits them unexpectedly
Now one could argue that after all, that would be the case for everyone who is in public today.
And yet it seems to hit researchers particularly unexpectedly.
Because, at least according to the majority of self-reports, they want to communicate neutral facts instead of representing controversial and therefore vulnerable opinions.
This self-image of their own neutrality, which can be found in most scientists, is reflected in a scientific system that is geared towards keeping personal preferences and published results apart as far as possible: through a strict anonymous review process of publications, for example, through the requirement of reproducibility or even in that in-depth assumptions and resulting uncertainties of the research have to be discussed in detail.
These mechanisms should keep the influence of personal interests on published results as small as possible.
That this works by and large can be seen from the fact that there is a consensus among researchers on many scientific questions without this having to be prescribed by allegedly dark forces.
It is also a job of science journalism to help educate people
The attacks on scientists show that many people assume that they are pursuing their own interests. And of course: It would be naive to uncritically infer from the self-disclosure of the researchers that they are completely neutral. Obviously, not every scientist who speaks out in public is really free of personal motives. If it is only a question of the credibility of individual experts, however, it is quite easy to use the scientific system itself to come to your own assessment: Does the supposed expert publish on the relevant topics? Is he internationally recognized as an expert? It is also a job of science journalism to help with the clarification.
The case is more difficult when the scientific community itself is distrusted. The dwindling trust in the scientific system should be an urgent call for research to check its own quality assurance structures for their functionality. The media also play an important role, not only as an independent and critical mediator of the functioning and methods of research. You are also responsible for not further fueling the aggression in the direction of the researchers.
Because the danger of the attacks is not only that scientists withdraw and thus a democratically relevant source of information is lost.
Perhaps the bigger problem would be provoking the withdrawal of those scientists from the public who really only want to communicate facts.
Because then only those are left who really have a personal benefit from being in public, for example because they are narcissists or pursue economic interests.