In our latest event in Athens, held on the 1st of June 2024, we conducted a series of insightful interviews to our ADIM Board Members in person. In addition, we asked them to write some more answers to our infinite questions about the trust in science subject.
These ADIM Board members are presented in our Advisory and Impact (ADIM) Board page as a source of expertise, providing regular feedback and guidance, and act as a dissemination multiplier. They are also distinguished by their recognition and high reputation in the field, or by the unique perspective they can contribute to the discussion on trust in science.
István Palugyai bio
Mr. Palugyai is a science journalist who has had an extensive career in the field with a focus on trust in science particularly in light of the proliferation of fake science and the decreasing accessibility of scientific information to the general public.
He has worked as a TV host, editor, and producer of popular science programs, as well as served as the science editor of daily papers from 1979 to 2016.
He holds notable positions such as Honorary President of the Club of Hungarian Science Journalists, President Emeritus of the European Union of Science Journalists’ Associations (EUSJA), and Vice President of the World Federation of Science Journalists. He also played significant roles in organizing international conferences and has been involved in various science communication projects.
In addition to his research, he is an innovator in STEM education and has developed transdisciplinary programs and initiatives. He has led extramural awards and research teams, focusing on topics such as communication technologies, social structures, and AI ethics. Furthermore, he has created educational programs and tools, including the Remote Sensing and Observation in Archaeology (ROSETTA) program and the Data Storytelling non-credit Program.
Written Interview
Question 1 – István, your field of expertise is currently on everyone’s lips when it comes to trust in science: Science communication. What is the current state of independent journalism with regards to science communication?
Answer – Print journalism: fewer science columns and science journalists, less space for science. The same is true for TV stations and radio stations, with the exception of the most serious newspapers and TV programmes in the major European countries (Germany, Spain, UK, France). At the same time, in science journalism, untrained journalists write on science topics, often resulting in errors.
In the online media, there is a ubiquitous surface for science, but the quality varies because there are also few science journalists, and often the production of science news is limited to translation. There is a growing number of quality science blogs, but they reach a smaller but targeted audience.
Question 2 – Researchers sometimes try to sidestep the responsibility of science communication by saying, for example, that it’s not their job. Journalists, on the other hand, argue that they do not have the required expertise in the respective fields of research to be able to communicate research findings appropriately. Who really is responsible for making science, research and innovation more trustworthy by translating and explaining expert knowledge to the wider public to protect people from harm caused by misinformation – researchers, journalists or other stakeholders?
Answer – Both sides are responsible. It is the responsibility of scientists to communicate their science, since they work mostly with the money of the community, but unfortunately, from the very beginning, on the one hand, they are not taught to do this in universities, and on the other hand, it is predominantly people who are less interested in communication who go into research. This can be improved, but universities do not pay attention to it.
The media have a responsibility to provide a bridge between science and the public. But because journalism education in most places does not pay attention to science journalism, as opposed to political, economic, cultural or sports journalism, this leads to untrained people writing about science, even though modern science is often more complicated than a political game or a sports match.
This is of course the fault of the media leaders, but also of the leaders of academia and politics, who fail to take steps to change the situation, the damage of which was clearly seen in the fake news that spread during Covid.
Question 3 – In your opinion as a media expert, are there specific science communication skills that need to be acquired by those responsible through educational programmes, and if so, what would these be?
Answer – There are some well-established science communication masters in Europe (In Germany, Italy, UK, Spain, France) , where all aspects of science communication are taught to a high standard. These should be taken as examples and their number increased.
Question 4 – Without predicting, do you have any thoughts on what the future holds for science communication and the promotion of trust in science, given global developments in terms of, for example, freedom of expression?
Answer – I cannot predict, but if there is no willingness on the part of those responsible to improve the situation, there will be no change and there will be more and more problems, as seen most recently in the spread of the whooping cough epidemic, which is the result of the spread of anti-vaccination due to a lack of scientific knowledge.
Video interview:
Below, Mr. Palugyai was interviewed by Lisa Haberlein from EUREC and he could answer to two more questions. To know the answer watch the video below, which is published on our YouTube Channel.
Stay Connected!
Follow us on Social Media through the right corner buttons on your screen and keep updated about our soon to be published ADIM Board Member interviews.