Defending Science - Science is not faith

Being able to communicate one’s work within one’s professional circles and beyond is increasingly important for professional success [Nachr. Chem. 2025, 73(6), 8]. In today’s world, we should not only focus on our own careers but also reflect on our role in society. Fake news floods our social media and is increasingly used as a basis for decisions by a growing number of political parties. In the USA, it is evident that science loses its function as a democratic check on power when it is tolerated only as a driver of innovation and no longer as an independent voice in society.

We have an acquaintance who is quite open to conspiracy theories. In a discussion about science and the limits of what we call knowledge, he complained: “The term ‘conspiracy theorist’ is quite ugly. It’s far too easy to be silenced by being branded in this way.” We paused. Where exactly is the line between science and conspiracy theory? And is this discussion purely philosophical, or does it have practical applications?

Science is about questioning certainties. Knowledge develops as people discover regularities. The hypotheses required for this might initially sound as outlandish as a conspiracy theory. How must humanity have reacted when Einstein presented his ideas on the theory of relativity? Time dilation, quantum leaps, and tunneling are still concepts that aren’t easy to digest. Why do we call Einstein’s work science? He presented a proof that his colleagues could verify.

Let’s look at a popular conspiracy theory: People who believe in chemtrails claim that the government is having commercial airliners spray chemicals to sterilise humanity. Is it a conspiracy theory or not?

We should ask for evidence before we judge. In most common conspiracy theories, this is straightforward: no serious attempt has ever been made to find evidence. Hearsay, purported expert opinions, or plausibility arguments such as “Those in power…” do not meet scientific standards.

Evidence is what distinguishes science from systems that claim absolute truth, such as conspiracy theories, religions, or authoritarianism. Scientists question themselves and are prepared to accept the refutation of their own work.

While instruments such as the peer-review process don’t always function flawlessly—after all, scientists are human, too—the scientific worldview is structured so that it can correct itself.

We recently experienced this willingness to self-skepticism in a striking way. While reading a publication, we noticed that the discussion text appeared to contradict an illustration. We emailed the lead author and received this reply: “Indeed, you are correct! We made a mistake in the figure – thanks for pointing this out! I need to contact the journal to correct this.” Every scientist who responds this way strengthens the credibility of science in our society.

This humility, this awareness of one’s own fallibility, doesn’t mean we go through life hunched over – quite the opposite. Participants in our presentation workshops often ask us how to respond if they don’t know something during the Q&A session. Our answer: “If you admit that you don’t know something, you show that finding the truth is more important to you than saving face.” The biggest fear among many young scientists – being caught out by a question – is actually an opportunity to shine: as an upright scientist who understands the responsibility of their role.

Fortunately, the vast majority of our society – citizens, companies, and politicians – has not succumbed to conspiracy theories. However, let’s be honest: this vast majority uses science only opportunistically. Average Joe and Jane enjoy the features of their smartphones while ignoring scientific findings about how their lifestyles affect themselves and the planet.

Innovative companies, including those in the chemical industry, base their economic success on scientific findings. When harmful side effects of their products become known, doubts are sown about research results, and only findings that don’t damage their reputation are considered, or the truth is even distorted. This is how science historians Erik M. Conway and Naomi Oreskes describe it in their book *Merchants of Doubt* (German: “Die Machiavellis der Wissenschaft”).

Politicians protect certain blind spots with almost religious zeal to curry favour with specific voter groups. How else can it be explained that repeated calls from coalitions of scientists to evaluate genetically modified organisms from a scientific rather than a dogmatic perspective go unheeded? Science cannot provide perfect solutions – for example, in politics. However, what scientists can do is raise their voices when science is misused and its findings distorted. Who else in our society is capable of doing this? And they don’t have to wait until a lie has been uttered before stepping in to help put out the fire. It is of great societal benefit when scientists actively engage in public debates and try to explain not only their latest results to their fellow citizens but also the scientific worldview itself.

This article is the first in a series and examines the role of science in society in broad terms. Subsequent installments 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 01-2026). See here the German original.

If you´re interested to learn more about the role of scientists in our society, and how we can positively influence it, you can check out our workshop Science and society: Make an impact.