The Role of Climate Scientists
- matthiasmeersschae
- il y a 1 jour
- 5 min de lecture
Reflecting on the seminar organised by the Belgian Climate Centre and the IRM-KMI on the 27th of November 2025
The seminar explored the evolving, and often contested, role of climate scientists in contemporary society, focusing on questions of activism, trust, communication, and the boundaries of scientific engagement. Beginning with the distinction between activism and radicalism, the speakers and panellists repeatedly returned to the tensions that arise when scientists step beyond research and enter public discourse or political arenas.
The event opened with three scientific presentations from researchers examining different dimensions of scientists’ engagement beyond their academic work.
Thank you to all participants and speakers for making this event a success!
Dr. Fabian Dablander (University of Amsterdam): Going Beyond Research: Climate Change Engagement of Scientists
Dr. Fabian Dablander (University of Amsterdam) discussed how scientists engage with climate change and why their levels of engagement vary so widely. Drawing on a survey of climate scientists, he showed that they differ substantially in both their beliefs and their willingness to participate in civic action. Notably, “techno-optimists”,those who place their hopes primarily in technological solutions,tend to be less willing to make personal lifestyle changes or participate in civic actions outside their research. By contrast, climate scientists as a group engage more in civic action than their non-climate peers.
Dr. Dablander highlighted several barriers to further engagement: intellectual barriers (such as the belief that civic action is outside the remit of scientists) and perceived knowledge gaps, as well as practical challenges (including limited time, concerns about credibility, and insufficient institutional support). He also outlined ways to overcome these obstacles—for example, fostering interaction with engaged citizens, integrating relevant material into scientific curricula, reforming academic institutions to allow more time for societal engagement, normalising and rewarding climate action, and training scientists in advocacy.
PhD Candidate Amanda Remsö (Kristianstad University and University of Gothenburg): Trust in Climate Scientists and Political Ideology
Ms. Remsö’s presentation focused on the issue of trust in climate scientists. Because climate change is not typically experienced directly, citizens rely heavily on experts for reliable information, making trust a cornerstone of democratic decision-making. Although international surveys indicate that trust in climate scientists is generally high, these experts are nonetheless trusted less than scientists in other fields—a disparity largely driven by the politicisation of climate issues. Notably, trust in climate scientists is more politically polarised in more democratic and wealthier countries.
Right-leaning individuals tend to distrust climate scientists more than left-leaning individuals, a pattern observed across many national contexts. Ms. Remsö’s research suggests that this distrust stems from people rejecting scientific information that conflicts with their ideological worldviews. While trust in climate scientists appears relatively stable over time, attempts to increase it have shown limited empirical success. Higher levels of trust are predicted by perceptions of scientists’ moral integrity, their visible public engagement, and the openness of their scientific practices. Interestingly, research also indicates that female scientists are often perceived as more trustworthy.
Dr. Lydia Messling: How can climate scientists engage in policy advocacy and preserve their credibility and independence? Theory into practice
Dr. Messling’s talk focused on the communication challenges faced by climate scientists. Drawing from her own experience, she observed that scientists are not trained for public communication, yet people look to them for guidance. Scientists today must negotiate a delicate balance between professional norms, personal values, and public expectations. Dr. Messling argued that while neutrality is often demanded of scientists, the ideal of “neutral science” is a myth; instead, what matters is maintaining objectivity. Advocacy, she contends, is legitimate as long as scientific analysis remains unbiased and scientists avoid using their authority to promote personal political positions. Still, she emphasised that simply speaking publicly can be interpreted as advocacy depending on the context. Silence, too, carries meaning, especially in a world where scientific voices are often expected. Effective communication requires awareness of audience worldviews and social context, and an understanding that the intention behind a message will not always determine how it is heard.
Panel discussion with climate scientists
The scientific presentations were followed by a panel discussion, moderated by Jorn Craeghs (Elders change agency), with four climate-related scientists engaged in different activities beyond research: Bright Adiyia (VITO), Cathy Clerbaux (CNRS/ULB), Marius Gilbert (ULB), Léo Van Broek (KU Leuven).
The panel discussion questioned what scientists should and should not do in a rapidly shifting societal landscape. Some panellists argued that focusing solely on “climate” is too narrow, as climate change is inseparable from larger systemic issues such as economic structures, demographic pressures, and biodiversity loss. Others stressed the importance of distinguishing one’s scientific role from one’s role as a citizen; a scientist may present facts with one “hat” and advocate for action with another. A central question emerged: can scientists go “too far”? While most participants believed that evidence-based engagement cannot go too far, they acknowledged that illegal or violent actions risk undermining credibility. Yet some argued that the real danger is not excessive activism but insufficient action, given the urgency of the crisis and decades of inaction. Institutional constraints often limit what scientists can publicly say, especially when their organisations depend on government funding.
The discussion also highlighted the barriers that prevent scientists from engaging more actively. Many fear misinterpretation or believe that they must communicate with perfect precision. Others hesitate because communication and political engagement require skills and time not provided for in their academic roles. The panellists insisted, however, that audiences rarely hold scientists to the same level of scientific precision that scientists expect of themselves. Communication, they emphasised, is not only about accuracy but also about connection with the audience, narrative, and relevance.
Media relations emerged as another major topic. While scientists fear being misquoted or simplified, several panellists argued that the solution lies in building long-term relationships with journalists who value evidence-based reporting. The media landscape has become increasingly fragmented, driven by algorithms and entertainment logics, which makes it harder for scientific messages to break through. Still, journalists can be valuable allies when mutual trust is established.
The panel also addressed the challenge of influencing politicians and decision-makers. Many participants noted that political decisions are rarely driven directly by scientific evidence; instead, they respond to public opinion, timing, and competing priorities. Scientists who wish to engage must therefore understand the political context and frame climate issues in ways that resonate with decision-makers' existing concerns such as economic stability, public health, or social welfare. Several speakers suggested reframing climate policy in terms of benefits aligned with political priorities rather than invoking climate for its own sake.
Throughout the discussion, the need for collective action within the scientific community was emphasised. Initiatives that unite scientists, such as Scientists for Climate, can reduce the sense of individual vulnerability and exposure and increase impact. Collaboration can also help address capacity problems, since communication and advocacy require significant preparation time and emotional resources. Some argued that scientific institutions should recognise communication and policy engagement as legitimate professional contributions rather than as extracurricular burdens. Others encouraged scientists to develop communication skills, even informally, by practising within their immediate circles and taking advantage of available media training.
The conversation concluded with reflections on what drives scientists to act. While some suggested that pessimism can motivate engagement, others preferred to focus on solutions and positive action. Several panellists encouraged scientists to act locally, build coalitions, and focus on areas within their control while still pushing for systemic change. A recurring theme was the need to move from reactive responses, such as answering media questions after extreme weather events, to proactive efforts that shape public narratives and political agendas. Importantly, silence was repeatedly described as a form of communication in itself; when scientists choose not to speak, that silence can be interpreted in ways they may not intend.
Overall, the seminar underscored the complex operating space in which climate scientists now find themselves. Their role extends beyond producing data: they must communicate effectively, navigate politicised landscapes, and decide how to engage in advocacy. While there is no single correct way to operate as a climate scientist, the speakers agreed that engagement is no longer optional. The challenge is not only to maintain objectivity and trust but also to use scientific knowledge responsibly in a world where the stakes are exceptionally high.
