Defending Science: Out of the Ivory Tower – With a Microphone, Pen, or a Shovel
Whether I’m on stage at a Science Slam or hosting my own Science Café, I consistently find that humour is an effective way to overcome resistance, even when many in the audience have never read a scientific paper. The audience laughs, nods, and listens. These formats bring science to people in an accessible way and bridge the gap between the two worlds.
Yet, in many academic circles, this commitment is still often seen as a hobby rather than a core responsibility. To have relevance outside the university, we need to ask ourselves: Why do we so often communicate only amongst ourselves?
A widely cited paper is intellectually impressive; an informed public is democratically powerful.
Why Public Participation Matters
One participant at a science café went beyond simply conveying information. She spoke about PFAS in soil and drinking water, placing the topic within a broader environmental and regulatory context without resorting to alarmism or inciting panic. She explained why PFAS are a problem, where uncertainties remain, and why tap water is safe to drink. Equally important was what happened after the presentation. Instead of disappearing behind a podium, she mingled casually with the audience at the bar. In this atmosphere, people felt comfortable asking questions, voicing concerns, and even seeking scientific advice. Science should not be a distant authority but a shared resource to which everyone has unhindered access.
Publications in high-ranking journals are important but not sufficient. Knowledge that reaches only the scientific community has little societal value. A widely cited paper is intellectually impressive; an informed public is democratically powerful. In this sense, science communication is not charity work but a civic duty. Societies that understand scientific thinking make better decisions with broader support. It’s unrealistic to expect all researchers to become full-time communicators. There are many legitimate ways to engage with the public, with or without the spotlight, or even entirely behind the scenes, supporting the communicators.
A Buffet of Formats
Choose from a variety of formats, as there is one for every communicator and situation. Science cafés or slams combine facts with humour and theatricality, sparking informal conversations offstage. Public lectures and debates allow for deeper discussions. Podcasts offer personal, in-depth conversations. Social media enables quick, visual interactions. School projects can inspire the next generation. The important thing is to choose a format that suits your personality, rather than one that feels like a punishment disguised as public relations.
Reaching an audience that thinks FAZ is a youth centre
Reaching those who know FAZ is a daily newspaper is relatively easy: they’ll come to events like the Long Night of Science on their own. However, when I tried to reach an audience unfamiliar with FAZ, the doors often closed.
A change of strategy was needed. I went where my audience already was. I began writing for a popular gardening magazine whose readership represents all of society. On the surface, my articles cover practical topics such as vegetable gardens, mulch, and genetic diversity. But there are subtle messages within: a call to avoid peat-based products and pesticides and to plant local species to promote biodiversity.
This isn’t manipulation; it means meeting readers where they are. If I want to make a difference, I have to reach gardeners who care about their plants but don’t automatically consider peatlands, environmental damage, or buzzing bees.
Who bears the responsibility?
Science communication is often portrayed as the sole responsibility of professors with a public profile. This is unfair and impractical. Many graduates leave academia to work in industry, politics, education, or other sectors. They, too, contribute their expertise to public understanding. We can all share responsibility for public outreach.
I would like to address an ethical point. Scientists should be mindful of how they present themselves when communicating outside their field. I can speak credibly as a scientist on peatlands or pesticides. However, when discussing air pollution, I should present myself as an engaged citizen who has consulted experts, not as a scientific authority.
This humility does not weaken science communication but strengthens it. Trust is built not only through knowledge but also through transparency about the limitations of that knowledge.
Leaving the ivory tower – without abandoning rigour
Leaving the ivory tower does not mean abandoning scientific rigour. It means giving science room to breathe in the real world, where emotions, values, and everyday experiences shape people’s thoughts and actions. Whether on stage, in a podcast, a newspaper column, or a gardening magazine, each of us can find a way to authentically connect expertise with society. You don’t have to become a communications pro overnight.
If science is to gain relevance beyond our laboratories, we must be willing to take it to places where laughter, dirt under the fingernails, and heated public debates are part of everyday life. And who knows? You might even enjoy it.
This article is the fourth in a series and examines the role of science in society in broad terms. We will address the tools available to scientists who communicate effectively and make a positive contribution to our society, as well as the potential pitfalls.
This article was first published in Nachrichten aus der Chemie (issue 04-2026). See here the German original.
If you´re interested in learning more about how scientists communicate with the general public, you might want to check out our workshop, Public science outreach.