July 25, 2025, by Brigitte Nerlich

Making Science Public in a chaotic world

As you know, I am now gradually moving from my old ‘Making Science Public’ blog home at the University of Nottingham to my new personal blog home here. This wasn’t easy and lots of people supported me directly or indirectly in this move (by listening to my whining). You know who you are, and I thank you all!

This new incarnation of the ‘Making Science Public’ blog has been born into a world full of conflicts, controversies, confusion and chaos. On one side of the Atlantic science and science communication are defunded; on the other side of the Atlantic funding is increasing but science, science communication, science writing and science journalism still face mounting challenges. On both sides of the Atlantic climate change is making itself felt through an increase in extreme weather events, while doubts about the reality of climate change are still being circulated.

On both sides of the Atlantic more and more people are opposed to or hesitant about vaccinating themselves or their children against preventable illnesses like measles. On both sides of the Atlantic dis- and misinformation, as well as conspiracy theories, are on the rise. Science communicators have for a long time stressed that it is important to talk not only about scientific ‘facts’ but even more so about the scientific ‘process’ which includes questioning and uncertainty as essential elements.

However, as a leading science journalist, Kai Kupferschmidt, has recently pointed out, “the pandemic shifted many people’s idea of how science works, leading them to question things that are actually on much firmer ground on the spectrum of certainty”. This poses new challenges to science and science communication, especially in a world where knowledge and truth are devalued. And not only that. Science communication faces real pressures from algorithmic manipulation and information pollution accelerated by advances is artificial intelligence. What does all this mean for my blogging?

Is it all doom and gloom?

I started blogging in 2012 as part of a programme of research on science and politics funded by the Leverhulme Trust that ended in 2018. Our research programme was book-ended by discussions about post-BSE trust crises and debates about (the death of) expertise. While these challenges persist and the politics of openness (proposed as a remedy) has become an even thornier issue over time, new forms of citizen science, participatory research, and collaborative approaches to tackling complex problems have emerged. Open access publishing has expanded, and the sharing of data and preprints has become standard practice.

Scholars all over the world have also developed better tools for studying science-society interactions; there are more diverse voices in science communication; and there is growing recognition that public engagement is essential, not optional. The study of the causes of misinformation and disinformation, including conspiracy theories, are increasing alongside recommendations for mitigation.

The concept of ‘responsible research and innovation’, which I explored in many of my blog posts, has evolved from an academic ideal to a practical necessity, with real policies and funding mechanisms supporting it. And finally, young science communicators are developing innovative approaches that reach audiences that traditional channels never could – and blogging as one of these channels is not quite dead yet.

I hope that public curiosity about science and interest in science communication will endure; that, despite all the challenges and obstacles, conversations between science and society continue to grow; and that this blog can contribute to these conversations in the future.

(This post can now be found here)

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Google+
• Share on LinkedIn