If you don’t have anything meaningful to say, don’t say anything at all

Thumper’s mother always used to say, ‘If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all’. In this column I would like to discuss the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (NGWI), and in particular standard 53 that states: ‘… be honest about the limitations of the research and your own expertise’. If I freely translate this to the credo of Thumper’s mother, I would call on you to adhere to the following: ‘If you don’t have anything meaningful to say, don’t say anything at all’.

Apart from being relevant to the academic staff of countless institutions that subscribe to the Code, it also applies to all PhD holders in the Netherlands, whether they work in academia, politics or in broadcasting. After all, on the day of their doctoral dissertation defence, the Chairperson speaks words that translate to: Your title of doctor means that society can rely on your judgement, that you act transparently and independently communicate your results and the societal relevance of your work. In other words, your doctor’s title implies academic integrity. I wish you much wisdom and prosperity with your new title.

I was reminded of the limits of my own expertise recently, when I attended a doctoral dissertation defence outside my own field. While I did my very best, I understood very little of it. So clearly it is very impressive that some people, whether or not they have any scientific training, are able to ‘do their own research’ with no difficulties on dozens of subjects and, in doing so, refer to scientific publications which they claim to understand.

One interesting paradox is that the work that they refer to, to support their story is often produced by an institute that they do not trust, to be explicit ‘academia’. But I digress. I gladly leave the battle against pseudo scientists to the TV personalities and journalists of this this world.

Successful scientific communication needs nuances that clickbait does not have

Back to my point. It is important to bring science across to the public responsibly, and this is where the challenge lies. Successful communication depends on both the sender and the receiver, and scientific communication needs the nuances that clickbait offer.

Scientific insight or consensus usually develops incrementally and is regularly drastically adjusted. This is not a sign of poor or unreliable science, instead, it is proof that the scientific method works. At the same time, I also understand society’s cry for clear answers.

How can we bring these two worlds closer together? In all honesty, I do not have a ready answer to this question either. But I do think that standard 53 of the NGWI is essential. So to all academics who read this and are involved in public debate, say ‘I don’t know’, ‘this is not my area of expertise’, or ‘science is not there yet’ more often, and try to shed light on the scientific method whenever you can.

And to all the talk shows out there (not that they will read my column), it is good that you invite academics and please continue to do so, but try not to entice them to make juicy statements and allow them to explain the nuances needed.