01.03.2024
Science creates trust
Dear readers,
The former US ambassador to Switzerland sees our country as a «powerhouse in the middle of Europe». This is particularly true when it comes to science. According to the QS World University Rankings compiled by QS Quacquarelli Symonds, ETH Zurich is the best university in continental Europe for the 16th time in a row, reports Watson news. In the current 2023 ranking, ETH Zurich went up two places and is now ranked number 7 in the world.
Swiss universities play a leading role in research. In an international comparison, they achieved the highest score for the research impact indicator. «Switzerland Global Enterprise» is pleased about another aspect of the Swiss scientific community. Switzerland is the patent world champion: «since 2022, a total of 9,008 patents from Switzerland have been filed with the European Patent Office. This means that the country is still the global leader when it comes to the number of patent applications per capita.» Indeed, Switzerland is also ranked number 7 in the world for the total number of patent applications.
These excellent results are gratifying. But scientific success is not set in stone. It has to be earned over and over again. This is all the more true when it comes to the population's trust in science. According to the 2022 Science Barometer Switzerland, 59 percent of those surveyed say that their level of trust in science is high or very high. «In 2020, at the height of the pandemic, trust was even more pronounced», states the summary of the survey, which was conducted by the University of Zürich. Trust levels shot up to 67 percent during Covid and have now levelled off again in the high 50s. Moreover, the proportion of Swiss people who have little or no trust in science is very low, at around five percent.
Scientific findings are the foundation on which problem solving, progress and economic success are based, be it in medicine, food production, or power generation. In an NZZ live article Mike S. Schäfer and Julia Metag explain that according to social theorists like Anthony Giddens or Niklas Luhmann, contemporary societies typically have to make use of the services of complex systems which they don't fully understand. Science is the prime example of this. «It is highly specialized and even for researchers not easy to comprehend in all its diversity. At the same time, it is socially influential and far-reaching in its effects; it supplies comparatively reliable knowledge which forms the basis for many decisions made by individuals, organizations and society.» They come to the conclusion that science therefore requires trust. «Trusting means relying on the honesty and dependability of individuals or systems without ultimately being able to fully understand or control their actions.»
But how does science gain this trust? As part of the «NZZ live» event series, a panel discussion addressed this topic. This event was sponsored by Bayer. You can find a comprehensive report on the event on the swiss-food website. One finding was that transparency is a key element for building trust in science. This is particularly important when it comes to privately sponsored research, because as soon as there is any suspicion of economic interests being involved, the public becomes increasingly sceptical. People are quick to make allegations of undue influence. Bayer recognizes this and has set up a Transparency register for scientific collaborations with external partners, which discloses important information about its contract-based scientific collaborations. In an interview, Monika Lessl, Head of Corporate R&D and Social Innovation at Bayer, explains: «For us as a science-based company, the integrity and credibility of our research and development are essential – period. In science, it is the facts that decide – not who has financed the studies.» Another finding was that the experience of the Covid pandemic, in particular, has highlighted the importance of ongoing communication. For example, ETH Zurich has set up a «Communication Academy» and issued «Guidelines on science-policy engagement». The Swiss Federal Council has also addressed the issue of trust in science and the use of scientific findings in the political process. At its session on December 8, 2023, it clarified its rules on consulting the scientific community in times of crisis, based on experience gained during the pandemic. The importance of science as a supplier of facts on which to base decisions is not in dispute.
In crises, scientific expertise is needed more than at any other time.
Communication and the assignment of roles therefore must be regulated all the more clearly. A newly drafted code is designed to do just that: «The code of practice states that experts are to advise policymakers about the current state of certainty and uncertainty in their field of expertise.» And communication should be channeled more effectively: «The chair or vice-chair of the advisory group is responsible for communicating with the public, in coordination with the Federal Chancellery and the lead department.» After all, responsibility for decisions lies with policymakers and will continue to do so.
Policymakers must not ignore scientific findings. Rather, their task is to weigh these up - even where the results of studies are controversial. And science must allow scientific findings to be weighed against interests and values in the political scales and to be seen in a wider context.
Marcel Dettling, President-designate of the SVP in Switzerland and farmer, recently learned just how explosive political statements that also touch upon scientific findings can be. In an interview with the NZZ on Sunday he stated frankly: «I would prefer it to get warmer than colder. For farmers, climate warming is no bad thing. Suddenly, high-yield new plant species are growing at our latitudes. And the growing season is getting longer.»
«Blick» set out to unearth the science behind this and subjected the statement to a fact check
under the heading: «Do the pros really outweigh the cons?» Swiss Farmers’ Union President Markus Ritter remains diplomatic when Blick asks him about it. He replied that he sees it in a «more nuanced» way.
According to the Farmers’ Union, while climate change really can also have positive impacts on agriculture, «in the medium term, the negative effects of climate change on agriculture are likely to clearly outweigh them, even in the most optimistic scenario (climate preparedness)». This, according to Blick, is the finding of a report by the Farmers’ Union. Among the benefits are that the growing season is extended and new types of crops can be cultivated. One of the drawbacks is that dry conditions are a problem for certain crops, particularly potatoes, sugar beet and corn. Heavy rainfall also poses a threat to harvests. Blick quotes Agroscope researcher Christoph Carlen as saying: «Farms at higher elevations and in wetter locations in mountainous areas are likely to see more benefits.» If Dettling was referring chiefly to himself as a mountain farmer with a farm 1100 meters above sea level, then he has scientific voices on his side, but if he was talking about the whole of Swiss agriculture, then he has scarcely any backing. It depends on which way you look at it.
Markus Dettling’s statement has triggered a debate about the effects of climate change on agriculture. It is good that this debate is taking place. However, informed decisions will subsequently have to be taken that work for both mountain and valley farmers. Political activists are of course free to express opinions and to put forward new ideas. Policymakers as a whole, however, are expected to take decisions that are also sustainable over time and factor in the latest scientific knowledge. After all, agriculture just like the rest of the economy is essentially dependent on reliable, legally certain and predictable conditions in which to operate.
The swiss-food editorial team
