Science communication in Slovenia – A response by the Jožef Stefan Institute, the National Institute of Chemistry and the University of Ljubljana

Main literature in the field ignored The main substantive problem with the document is that it separates science communication practice from science communication as a field of academic enquiry elsewhere in the world. As a result, the document ignores almost all the literature in the field, which is exceptionally wide in scope. The practice of science communication is inseparably linked to research in this field; and while it is important to take the specifics of Slovenia into account when taking a position on and defining science communication in this country, the document cannot simply ignore almost all the definitions and positions established in the academic literature, and impose particular definitions without adequate references.

Close connection rather than separation No scientific research institution, i.e. no institution in which science is actually created, was involved in the process of drawing up the document, which analyses, defines and gives guidelines for science communication. The basic mission of research institutions is to create new knowledge, and its main priorities also include, in every case, the dissemination of knowledge of new research findings, to professional circles and the general public alike. To this end, PR departments and professionals at research institutions are actively engaged in the widest variety of approaches to the field of science communication.

We are aware of (and do not dispute) the differences between public relations at academic institutions and science communication. That said, we strongly defend the idea that these two areas are closely related and frequently overlap, something pointed out in its response to the document by the Public Relations Society of Slovenia (PRSS), which is the central sectoral organisation in this field. The document does not contain a recommendation for close cooperation and synergy between these fields. We believe that cooperation between them would strengthen both, promote trust in science, and support the strategic objectives of scientific institutions.  

Cooperation between scientists and those responsible for public relations is one of the keys to success. The document mentions the Dutch document ‘Science Communication by Scientists: Rewarded’, which highlights four key recommendations, as an example of a well-ordered science communication system. The fourth recommendation states that researchers who wish to become experts in the field of science communication should be provided with training and the opportunity to acquire new knowledge, and that science communication should involve collaboration with experts in communication and their networks – something the ministry’s document does not mention. The document therefore forgets the fact that those working in the field of PR are experts in communication, just as scientists are experts in their respective fields of research. The key to success lies in cooperating with each other.

It is not an obligation but, rather, a way of empowering those who wish to communicate. We would also like to point out that science communication should not be an obligation on the part of all scientists. On the contrary: we should give scientists the opportunity to choose, and provide adequate resources and training to support those who do wish to engage with the field. The assumption and expectation that science communication has to be an inseparable part of every research process could lead to a number of undesirable consequences. Encouraging scientists to inform the public about their research results is important; but this too can have undesirable consequences. The pressure on them to explain complex scientific problems to the general public can cause miscommunication and excessive simplification. This can even result in the public being misled.

In the analysis of major international scientific institutions, where are those from Slovenia? In their review of existing practices, the authors mention several selected science communication activities in Slovenia; they even refer to some examples of activities by major international scientific institutions. This raises the following question: why has the authors’ analysis completely ignored domestic scientific institutions and their efforts, over many years, in this field? Let us mention just a few.

Science communication activities have been one of the National Institute of Chemistry’s priorities for a number of years. Their quest for new ways of communicating science includes the ‘Vzeto na znanje’ and ‘Člankarnica’ podcasts, as well as the series of social media ‘takeovers’ in which they inform the general public about the day-to-day work of various departments at the institute. Every year they organise the ‘Institute of Chemistry Week’ and a series of open days featuring a range of events for the general public, as well as a summer research school designed to excite young minds and give budding researchers the chance to come into direct contact with top researchers through laboratory work. They also organise round tables on the latest topics in science and, in the last few years, have published books designed to communicate various different fields of science and related content.

The Jožef Stefan Institute has also stepped up its science communication activities in recent years. This year they have added appearances on TikTok to their work on traditional media, such as the website, direct mail and social networks, with the aim of reaching mainly younger social media users. They organise a large number of activities every year, including the regular annual Jožef Stefan Days and Open Day, where they invite the public into their laboratories. They have also been operating the TV IJS television channel for several years; this carries shorter and longer talks, as well as feeds from its laboratories. All of this helps to give science a live visual identity.

In collaboration with the online academic journal Alternator Misliti Znanost and MGML (the umbrella institution for museums and galleries in Ljubljana), the University of Ljubljana organised the first international conference on science communication in Slovenia two years ago. Titled ‘The Rediscovery of Science Communication’, it became a meeting point for researchers, PR professionals and journalists from all over Europe. This year’s conference was devoted to communicating the climate crisis and extreme weather. In collaboration with MGML, the University of Ljubljana is organising the third M_oder event, which provides students from all levels of university education with the chance to present their research achievements to a wider audience.

All the institutions mentioned above have, in the last year, also prepared a series of joint events presenting and publicising interesting and important aspects of the work of individuals active in scientific fields. They organised a round table to mark International Day of Women and Girls in Science in February 2024, the Food for the Brain Festival in April, and a series of interdisciplinary events discussing current social issues and challenges around the setting-up of sustainable food systems. In November the big three institutions in Slovenian science will again join forces with an event to mark World Science Day. All three institutions are also involved in producing the award-winning Alternator online journal, whose aim is to bring scientific findings closer to a general audience. Public relations professionals create all of the events and projects listed above in cooperation with researchers from a variety of different fields.

Owing to the deficiencies to which we have drawn attention above, we expect the responsible ministry either to supplement the document so that it meets at least the minimum professional requirements of the field, or else withdraw it.

Jožef Stefan Institute
National Institute of Chemistry
University of Ljubljana