BEnthusiasm for science – if one wanted to determine the essence of what constitutes the particularly lasting and motivating effect of the Lindau Conference in the interactions between young researchers and Nobel Prize winners, then it would probably be this deep passion shared by everyone. Confidence in the power of the scientific method is naturally high when the young and the old research elite meet. And yet, after more than two years of the pandemic, it is clear that this trust cannot be taken for granted in general and uncritically. The dispute between the public and science, which has not always been smooth, has finally reached an unprecedented intensity worldwide in recent years, and the pandemic has also caused some unrest and discussions about one’s own claims, tasks and deficits in research itself.
„Trust in Science, Trust in Chemistry“
It was therefore obvious that the first Lindau face-to-face meeting after the pandemic break had to take up and continue these discussions alongside the specialist lectures. The framework for this was provided on the first day, when, under the moderation of Lindau veteran Adam Smith, trust in science in general and in particular – “Trust in Science, Trust in Chemistry” – was to be discussed. The chemistry Nobel Prize winner Venki Ramakrishnan was on the podium together with the Physics Nobel Prize winner Brian Schmidt, the marine biologist Antje Boetius from Bremen and the two young researchers María Clara Miserendino from the Universidad Nacional de Córdoba and Sophie Marie Gutenthaler from the LMU in Munich .
It quickly became clear that the question of trust has to be reflected on many different levels. There is a need for discussion even among scientists themselves. “We constantly have to learn new cultures. During the pandemic, that meant sharing knowledge really quickly when there was almost no knowledge,” said Antje Boetius. Now it should be considered whether and, if so, where one should maintain this new speed in the publication of results and where one has to return to the thorough and therefore also slow way of peer review.
More discussion and transparency can help
However, the problem of quality assurance in research is not an easy one, said former President of the Royal Society Venki Ramakrishnan. The expert system is similar to what Churchill said about democracy: “It’s the worst system in the world, with the exception of all the others.” Sharing data and results immediately leads to the rapid dissemination of knowledge, but promotes it as well as the spread of false information. Scientific results have to be curated, otherwise there is no way for non-specialist scientists or the general public to distinguish high-quality information from “noise”. Brian Schmidt revealed that during the pandemic he sometimes wished for a “science twitter” that would have enabled discussions among scientists without letting the entire public participate. At the same time, he advocated more transparency in the provision of data and methodological information so that other scientists can quickly check the results. At least in the long term, research is a self-correcting system, and Ramakrishnan has repeatedly stated that errors will be discovered sooner or later. The problem arises when this process is too slow to prevent short-term damage caused by incorrect results. You still have to act quickly in crises, there is no easy solution here.