Whispering

I love paper. I prefer to read newspapers, magazines and books in their printed, physical form. And even when it comes to the creative process, I find it more rewarding to put my energy into this beautifully designed, tangible magazine than into a fleeting online publication. Which, of course, is not fleeting at all — I know that too — since once something is online, it floats around indefinitely.

But today I find paper rather limiting. Because I am writing this piece on 29 October, the day of the Dutch general election. And I know that this piece will reach you no earlier than 11 November. So what do you write about in an editorial, when you know that the political and social climate is, to put it mildly, rather turbulent — and, as I have mentioned here before, previously commonplace practices such as careful reflection, expressing doubt, engaging in substantive debate, incorporating new insights and remaining open to the expertise of others are no longer seen as qualities, but as signs of weakness.

Should we simply wait quietly for it all to blow over? Whatever the outcome, I believe that ‘we’ must continue to make our voices heard long after leaving the polling booth. And by ‘we’, I really mean ‘you’ — the readers of this specialist magazine. You all possess specific knowledge and experience that is relevant to all manner of issues being fought over in the political arena. Issues where technical and substantive expertise ought to take priority over short-term party-political thinking. It is easy enough to be smugly dismissive about the lack of scientific and technical knowledge in Westminster or Brussels and leave it at that — but then nothing changes either.

‘I believe that “we” must continue to make our voices heard long after leaving the polling booth’

You might instead view it as an opportunity, an invitation, or indeed a necessity, to help politicians and policymakers and offer them that knowledge. Because let us be honest — it is already near impossible to keep up with every development within your own specific niche, let alone in adjacent fields or those even further afield. You do not need to become a full-time lobbyist or go into politics yourself.

An opinion piece is also a perfectly good — and quite achievable — approach. And anyone who is now thinking, yes, all very well, but the facts are known, they speak for themselves, you can keep saying it but it won’t make the slightest difference — I would point them to ‘Opinionated Science’, a wonderful piece by Michelle Francl (whom I have cited here on several occasions before) published in mid-October in Nature Chemistry.

Francl makes a compelling case for scientists writing opinion pieces, because we may well believe that ‘the facts speak for themselves’, but ‘the facts whisper amongst themselves in the scientific literature in a language that is largely unknown to the broader public’. That is why, Francl argues, we must give the facts a voice. And it is up to us — you included — to do so. Especially outside of election time.