Prof. Hanna Schmid-Petri, Chair of Science Communication: Ideally the communication of scientific evidence contributes to the objectivity of public debates and prepares the ground for well-informed political decisions. To be able to fulfil this function for a society and to assure the quality of the publicly disseminated information scientists and journalists have to work together. However, in reality this cooperation bears some pitfalls as the working logic of both systems (science and journalism or mass media) fundamentally differs: Whereas journalists prefer easily understandable, emotional and personal statements – scientists mostly base their communication on facts and detailed information and have often difficulties to communicate the key facts of their research in a simple (and nevertheless correct) way. Besides traditional ways of communicating science or scientific evidence via the mass media, online communication offers new advantages to easily access interested audiences. However, the risks of online communication are that scientific facts are politicized and used e.g. by the skeptical minority to attack scientists and/or the scientific consensus. Against the background of these challenges the talk discusses the role of scientists in public debates, presents research findings concerning the depiction of climate science in mass and online media, and tries to deduce thereof some do’s and dont’s and practical advice for science communication in general and specifically for the communication about climate change.
|Veranstaltende||Werkstattgespräch Nachhaltigkeit, AStA, Institut für Ethik|
|E-Mail (für Rückfragen)||firstname.lastname@example.org|