Prof Micha KLEIBER MINISTER SCIENCE for SOCIETY REMARKS

Prof. Michał KLEIBER MINISTER SCIENCE for SOCIETY REMARKS OF A CONCERNED RESEARCHER AND RESEARCH ADMINISTRATOR The Lautenschläger Research Prize 2005

Motto Either we take hold of the future or the future will take hold of us Patrick Dixon v ACCOUNTABILITY OF RESEARCH: ETHICS AND COMMUNICATION v SCIENCE IN THE DIGITAL AGE v EUROPEAN SCIENCE POLICY – DO WE HAVE IT, DO WE NEED IT? SCIENCE for SOCIETY Michał KLEIBER

MESSAGE No. 1 MAKE RESEARCH ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PUBLIC The pursuit and diffusion of knowledge enjoy a place of distinction in European tradition, and the public expects to reap considerable benefit from creative contributions of researchers. It is still generally accepted that supporting university education and different forms of research is a crucial element in advancing public good. BUT: Society will support research only as long as it feels it can trust the scientists and the institutions that employ them – accountability of research endeavor to the public is a crucial requirement in this regard, whereas integrity in the conduct of research is an important part of that accountability. Society at large must be convinced that scientific activity is at its service. SCIENCE for SOCIETY Michał KLEIBER

HOWEVER: Scientists are no longer perceived exclusively as guardians of objective truth but also as defenders of their own (individual or group) interests in a media driven scientific marketplace. THEREFORE: It is more important than ever that individual researchers and their institutions constantly assess the values that guide their research UNFORTUNATELY: v No established measures for assessing integrity in the research environment exist v Fostering responsible conduct in research must be done in a creative way, otherwise it may be ineffective v Institutional self-assessment appears to be a constructive and promising approach to improving integrity of research. SCIENCE for SOCIETY Michał KLEIBER

ACCOUNTABILITY means much more than ethical behaviour, of course. Since a significant percentage of research is funded with tax money, everyone using those funds has an obligation to explain to the public in understandable language how that money has been used. The message may seem convincing but make no mistake: A bottom line here may be that science should give up a part of its autonomy and transfer it to non-scientists! SCIENCE for SOCIETY Michał KLEIBER

HOWEVER, IS SOCIETY PREPARED TO EXERCISE ITS INFLUENCE ON SCIENCE? How we should talk the public into debating the ways to: v understand merits and scope of scientific inquiry v address in a non-biased way controversial issues (GMO’s, stem cells, nuclear energy, religious orthodoxy, . . . ) v deal with privacy of research data v. . SCIENCE for SOCIETY Michał KLEIBER

PROBLEMS TO BE OPENLY DEBATED v science dispenses both beneficial and adverse effects v science input is often limited to a short-term horizon v there are serious negative effects of compartmentalization of disciplines, hyperspecialization and brain drain v information overload becomes at places unmanageable, prompting ex cathedra pronouncements v large private companies may monopolize the information highways with the quality and objectivity of the data transmitted difficult to control SCIENCE for SOCIETY Michał KLEIBER

THERE IS EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CREDIBILITY PROBLEM SCIENCE FACES TODAY IS BIGGER THAN EVER BEFORE. THE PUBLIC APPEARS TO OFTEN QUESTION WHETHER PROGRESS IN SCIENCE BRINGS ABOUT ANY COHERENT INCREASE IN WELL-BEING OF THE HUMAN RACE AT ALL. SCIENCE for SOCIETY Michał KLEIBER

SUGGESTIONS OF A SCIENCE COMMUNICATION PRACTITIONER There is no such thing as a ‘general audience’ and, consequently, no ‘one-size-fits-all’ method of science communication – different communication programs should address the needs of different groups (education, age, economic status, familiarity with specific technologies, local community needs and interests, …) SCIENCE for SOCIETY Michał KLEIBER

SCIENCE ATTENTIVE AUDIENCE those who express a high level of interest in particular science issues and regularly seek relevant information, less than 10 % of the population in the developed countries SCIENCE INTERESTED AUDIENCE those who claim to have some interest about science issues but have casual access to relevant information, perhaps some 40 % of the population RESIDUAL AUDIENCE those who are neither interested nor informed about science issues SCIENCE for SOCIETY Michał KLEIBER

Public understanding of science is something different than appreciation of a research institution – a communication mistake made by many researchers wishing to enhance the reputation of their institution rather than to explain the phenomenon of public interest. Scientists themselves must be involved in communication programs – in an era of sophisticated and complex science it is only them who can make room for a much higher degree of connection across science and society Individual scientists and research institutions should be strongly encouraged to find ways to communicate all their findings – particularly important in health and environment sector SCIENCE for SOCIETY Michał KLEIBER

1. Communication programs should illustrate both processes and products of science, and relate it to the everyday environment 1. Communication programs should involve multimedia and interactivity 1. Evidence exists that in order to gain public support trust in research institutions is more important than knowledge about research results, risk factors involved in specific applications and even awareness of new developments TRUST CAN ONLY BE WON IN THE COURSE OF CONSTANT DIALOGUE WITH THE PUBLIC SCIENCE for SOCIETY Michał KLEIBER

A key ingredient in trying to overcome the current crisis is A NEW CONTRACT REDEFINING THE RELATIONS BETWEEN SCIENCE AND SOCIETY Society has to be constantly trying to better understand science Society has to work out better ways to foster and control public expenditures on research Science has to be constantly making every effort to evoke societal interest in it Science has to be made more accountable SCIENCE for SOCIETY Michał KLEIBER

MESSAGE No. 2 SCIENCE IN THE DIGITAL AGE – or how not to overlook opportunities and threats? Is IST a slogan, an uncontrolled revolution or a controllable development? IST: the means rather than the goal! IST crucial for handling existing and creating new knowledge. As in other sectors of public life, the use of IST has become a crucial factor in maximizing research benefits. SCIENCE for SOCIETY Michał KLEIBER

PREDICTIONS v Evolution of IT will continue to be characterized by rapid exponential growth with the Net becoming truly ubiquitous and pervasive v IT will challenge traditional academic institutions by relaxing constraints of space, and time, and benefits of ‘monopoly’ v IT will change dramatically the ways we handle storage of and access to data, information and knowledge thus elevating the importance of intellectual capital relative to physical and financial capital v IT will greatly influence the methodology of scientific endeavor HOW WILL IT DEVELOPMENTS INFLUENCE THE METHODOLOGY OF SCIENTIFIC ENDEAVOR AND HOW WILL THEY REDEFINE THE MISSION AND STRUCTURE OF THE RESEARCH INSTITUTION? SCIENCE for SOCIETY Michał KLEIBER

THE IMPACT OF IT ON THE SCIENCE INSTITUTION WILL BE PROFOUND TRANSFORMING NOT ONLY ‘INTELECTUAL’ PART OF IT (RESEARCH, EDUCATION, OUTREACH) BUT ALSO ITS ‘ADMINISTRATIVE’ PART (STRUCTURE, FINANCES, GOVERNANCE). THERE IS A HIGH LIKELIHOOD OF EMERGING A GLOBAL „KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING” INDUSTRY. SCIENCE for SOCIETY Michał KLEIBER

The typical issues to be addressed are: v v v v v How will e-learning affect traditional teacher-centered instruction? How will the idea of residential campuses be affected? How will tackling large-scale research problems be affected? How to be more effective in the planning, procurement and management of IT infrastructure? IT How to handle new developments in regard to intellectual property, copyright, instructional-content ownership or faculty contracts? How should the university address the evolving commercial marketplace for educational services and content? Will the universities be forced to merge into larger ones (similarly to the corporate world)? Will they find it necessary to outsource or spin-off many of its activities? What are the changes in national and European policies that are required to keep the research institutions in step with evolving IT? IT SCIENCE for SOCIETY Michał KLEIBER

FOR AT LEAST A DECADE (OR SLIGHTLY LESS) THE PACE OF CHANGE WILL BE RATHER SLOW – INACTION AND PROCRASTINATION NOW WOULD BE HIGHLY DENGEROUS IN VIEW OF CERTAINTY OF RAPID ADVANCES IN IT AND THE ‘NATURAL’ INABILITY OF THE RESEARCH INSTITUTION TO CHANGE ITSELF FAST. SCIENCE for SOCIETY Michał KLEIBER

MESSAGE No. 3 DO WE NEED EUROPEAN SCIENCE POLICY? Institutional problem of EU science policy: v Rooted in unanswered question of Europe federalism/nonfederalism which new European institutions (if any at all) should be created to respond to problems of science? v The European Council of Ministers for Research does not decide on anything relevant to European science policy – rather it tackles marginal issues of a rather particular instrument called FP. v There is no other political administrative body to debate questions of science policy in Europe. SCIENCE for SOCIETY Michał KLEIBER

MORE GENERALLY I DOUBT THAT SCIENCE POLICY NOWADAYS LIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE MAIN STREAM EUROPEAN POLITICS. HOW SHOULD WE MAKE SCIENCE A POLITICALLY RELEVANT ISSUE? IS AN INCREASED PARTICIPATION OF SCIENTISTS IN SHAPING EUROPEAN SCIENCE POLICY AN ANSWER? IS THE EUROPEAN RESEARCH COUNCIL A STEP IN THIS DIRECTION? SCIENCE for SOCIETY Michał KLEIBER

Research Education Innovation REI as in α α α i AND IT DOES INDEED! It is up to us to see that it moves in the right direction SCIENCE for SOCIETY Michał KLEIBER