Between these two attitudes, which is appropriate? Blind trust: “We can be wrong, but you researchers, in your field, are not wrong.” The denial of scientific truth reduced to the rank of simple opinion: “I don’t believe in global warming.”
For this, two preliminaries for science journalists who serve as intermediaries between researchers and the general public: we must try to understand as best as possible the scientific reasons for the researcher‘s assertions; but also check that he can be seen as a “spokesperson” for his community, that is to say that his statements reflect a consensus.
In science, knowledge is always perfectible
Hence the importance of training work – teaching and popularization – by researchers on the one hand, and of the organization of scientific communities to collectively express the conclusions which, at a given moment, constitute a consensus in the field, ‘elsewhere.
This will not prevent errors since in science, knowledge can always be improved and researchers are not exempt from the pressures or biases of the world in which they live; but it’s the best we can do. As for the people who do the research themselves, it is their responsibility to always revisit what is taken for granted in their field, to question it in the light of scientific progress.
By Claire Mathieu, research director at CNRS, Institute for Research in Fundamental Computer Science (CNRS/Paris Cité University)
