René Descartes (1596–1650; Fig 1) is one of the most influential figures in the history of Western philosophy and his work set Europe on a new track in terms of scientific thought and methodology. A revolutionary thinker who combined philosophy with an interest in physics and physiology and an unusual gift for mathematics, he was the first to make a clear break with Aristotle and the medieval scholastic traditions. With his concept of ‘hyperbolic doubt’—the exaggerated doubting of everything except that which can be unambiguously proved—he asserted that we can trust neither beliefs and opinions nor our senses when explaining the world around us. Presumably, it is because of these achievements that the European Commission (EC) chose his name for a prestigious science prize, first awarded in 2000.

Figure 1
Figure 1
Full size image

© Archivo Iconofragico S.A./CORBIS

Portrait of René Descartes by Sebastien Bourdon, ca. 1640–1670.

Europeans generally like celebrating their good old values, but the zeitgeist of science is moving on in Europe. Just as Descartes was responsible for a revolution in his age, so today's science is ready for another. For how much longer will scientists have the option of working away from public scrutiny? After the revolution, to be a scientist will mean ‘to study and communicate science’, and similar standards will be applied to both. The expansion of the Descartes Prize to address science communication is just the beginning (see sidebar). As Peter Csermely, one of five winners, from Semmelweis University, Hungary, commented “Science communication is not a mission; it is a necessity.” He and the other four awardees of this new category were celebrated in December 2004 at a ceremony in Prague in the Czech Republic.

FormalPara Winners of the first Descartes Prize for Science Communication

  • Vincent Lamy, French TV producer, in the category Scientific television/radio programme for a series of children's programmes on science called “C'est pas sorcier” (It's not magic).

  • Ignaas Verpoest, from the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium, in the category Innovative action for science communication for a touring exhibition of composite materials entitled “Composites on tour”.

  • Peter Csermely from Semmelweis University, Hungary, in the category Innovative action for science communication for his international “Network of Youth Excellence”.

  • Sir David Attenborough, British natural history broadcaster, in the category Professional scientists engaged in science communication to the public for his documentary films.

  • Wolfgang Heckl from Ludwig‐Maximilians University in Munich, and chief spokesman of the German Centre for Nanoanalytics, Munich, in the category Professional scientists engaged in science communication to the public for his communication work in nanotechnology.

The twenty‐first century has been nicknamed the ‘age of biology’; this might have troubled Descartes, whose idealized view of science was that of an endeavour to identify ‘undoubtable’ facts and establish an incontrovertible basis for reasoning. Instead, as scientists ask ever more complex questions of humanity and the natural world around them, the public increasingly sees science as a source of uncertainty and sometimes disturbingly inaccurate and temporary models. After Descartes, uncertainty was reflected in the so‐called hard sciences, as anyone knows who has tried to measure simultaneously the energy and position of a sub‐atomic particle. But that did not hinder the development of particle physics. All the more reason for us to continue to value scientific curiosity, and all the more need to communicate its unpredictable nature, and often spectacular benefits, to the public.

Unfortunately, the growing hunger of economies for technological innovation, and the impatience of investors, all too often causes scientific curiosity to be wrapped in suggestions of possible applications, particularly if the research is to be funded with European money. It was therefore a refreshing surprise for champions of basic research that the 2004 winners of the Descartes Prize for Research were scientists with purely curiosity‐driven projects. These were Anders Karlsson from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden, whose European Union (EU) network researches the informational properties of quantum‐entangled photons; and Howard Jacobs from the University of Tampere, Finland, whose team studies the way mitochondrial function and dysfunction are controlled by mitochondrial and nuclear genes and their influence on cellular ageing.

Using his award speech to best advantage, Jacobs underscored the strange way in which curiosity‐driven research works: “Research is not done according to a roadmap” he said. “What route map exists is made on a day‐to‐day basis on fragmentary information. It's not like assembling a motor car via a blueprint; it's a creative chaos where one night of brainstorming over a pint of beer is as likely to produce a breakthrough as 10 to 15 years of painstaking research in the lab.” Perhaps he really did mean “one night” because, with funding periods decreasing, two nights would be a luxury. Descartes, in his day, had the luxury of timelessness, but thinking is cheap in comparison with molecular biology, and competition was scarce then.

… to be a scientist will mean ‘to study and communicate science’, and similar standards will be applied to both

To make European science a force to be reckoned with again in the face of growing international competition, three changes in research strategy are urgently needed according to Jacobs: excellence as the only criterion for funding, freedom from the pressure to produce tangible benefits, and greater scientific collaborations with countries outside Europe. And now the time is ripe, he said: “With some scientific heartlands—such as the USA—on shaky ground, this is a moment when Europe should seize the opportunity to seed and lead the science of the future.”

Jacobs' words resonated in the ears of EU officials gathered in Prague Castle for the Descartes Prize ceremony and festivities—an event well conceived by the EC not only for celebrating European research, but also for discussing its culture and future. But where Europe should be headed, and where it is headed, could be different things. Descartes may well have added the 2000 Lisbon declaration—“to make Europe the world‐leading knowledge economy by 2010”—to his list of things of which to be doubtful. The accepted formula for achieving this end is an increase in spending on research and development across the EU, and the employment of at least 500,000 new scientists and technologists within five years.

Although many people take this as gospel, these figures rest on assumptions that have never been completely justified. Surely, the mere facts that the USA spends more on research and development and has more scientists per head than Europe are not argument enough. But there are signs that playing the numbers game with the USA (and Japan) is not all that Europe cares about. Leading EU figures desperately trying to salvage the Lisbon agenda have taken a radical stance, as voiced last October in a meeting organized by Friends of Europe, a non‐profit organization in Brussels, Belgium, and EurActiv, a media portal dedicated to EU affairs: “No more comparisons with the US”. Without doubt the EU should avoid blindly following the USA, but to abandon comparisons would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Surely there is a middle way between stagnating conservatism and foolhardy extremism: recognizing the place of curiosity‐driven research in technological progress is one American lesson that the EU should not forget.

… as scientists ask ever more complex questions of humanity and the natural world around them, the public increasingly sees science as a source of uncertainty and sometimes disturbingly inaccurate and temporary models

It is easy for people to take potshots at the EC for its preference for funding applied over basic research, but as Rainer Gerold, Director of the EC Directorate ‘Science & Society’, pointed out—probably for the millionth time—“The EC did not choose to fund only applied research, it was restricted to fund mainly applied research by the member states of the EU, who preferred to fund basic research themselves.” So, selber schuld (your fault) as the Germans would say. Perhaps scientists should have organized themselves and lobbied at the national level before that happened. But the EU could also improve considerably merely through better use of national resources and diversity. To its credit, the EC has contributed significantly to supporting the careers of young scientists and is dedicated to increasing mobility; this would have pleased Descartes, who spent eight years of his life travelling around Europe.

However one tries to enhance scientific careers and science funding through administrative measures, one cannot help but wonder whether good communication of research would achieve as much, if not more, in the long run. Indeed, a groundswell of opinion says that scientific progress itself can no longer be made without public support. Wolfgang Heckl, chief spokesman of the German Centre for Nanoanalytics, Munich, and one of the five winners of the 2004 Descartes Prize for Science Communication, is an outspoken advocate of this view: “Innovation needs communication. To achieve the Lisbon targets, we need major efforts in Science & Society. […] It can only succeed if states grow together, if there is convergence of scientific disciplines and education in science is made a priority.”

Tackling these last two points was Peter Csermely, who also won the EMBO Award for Science Communication in 2003. Csermely, via his rapidly growing international “Network of Youth Excellence”, has mobilized teachers and scientist mentors to promote bright students to good university places by giving them the chance to work with researchers while still at school. As passionate about communication as about research, he commented of the scientists of tomorrow: “They're sitting in the highschools today; they need to experience discovery and joy in science.” For young people from a variety of backgrounds, “the project is an unparalleled opportunity to break social barriers; science becomes their home,” said the Hungarian researcher.

Many would agree that scientists urgently need an image change, but relatively few react to this advice, let alone develop a proactive stance

A radical increase in public engagement in, and critical appreciation of, science in Europe would surely be a good thing, but scientists will need help from other professionals. As Sir David Attenborough, celebrated UK natural history broadcaster and co‐winner of the Descartes communication prize in the category Professional scientists engaged in science communication to the public commented: “Society has to come to a decision on many scientifically rooted innovations. That is a huge responsibility that broadcasters and journalists bear.” And with characteristic modesty about his own work, he noted, “Advances of today take great skill to bring to people's attention; this will tax the skills of every broadcaster and journalist; there can't be a bigger task that we […] have to tackle than that.”

In Descartes‘ day, science communication faced different problems from today: there were no journalists reporting, let alone sensationalizing, science; the Catholic Church did much more damage than any careless commentator could have. Today journalists' skills and their role in communicating science should be recognized as vitally useful, and taken advantage of by scientists. As Heckl noted, “The public would know [almost] nothing about breakthroughs in science if there weren't journalists.” Janez Potocnik, the new EC Commissioner for Research from Slovenia, perhaps summed up best the cause and remedy for some of the wounds at the interface of science and society in Europe: “Information for the public is not of secondary importance, something to be tackled when the research is done and results achieved. [It] should be, must be, considered as one of the key elements in any research project.” Many would agree that scientists urgently need an image change, but relatively few react to this advice, let alone develop a proactive stance. Heckl is one of the latter, as witnessed by his winning documentary film on nanotechnology, in which he appears on an alpine meadow in checked shirt and lederhosen to explain that he is surrounded by billions of natural nanomachines: “I was the one who said ‘let's do something different!’ Usually scientists are portrayed as white coats walking around a laboratory with a flask of coloured liquid, now and then peering down a microscope. That separates them from the rest of society.”

Descartes certainly did not do much to dispel this popular notion of the scientist. He espoused the need for (his) new ideas and thinking to be communicated to the general public while spending 20 years working as a recluse in Holland, and changing his residence frequently to maintain privacy. The Descartes prizes are an extremely important symbol because they combine the celebration of scientific endeavour with the recognition of science communication. But is Descartes the right choice to lend his name to them, particularly the communication prize? Europe has no shortage of celebrity scientists who might better vie for that honour: Antoine Lavoisier (1743–1794), Descartes' countryman, was a genial and outgoing polymath who interested himself in society and the economy too. Giordano Bruno (1548–1600), an Italian philosopher, travelled the countryside informing the general public that, contrary to what the Church said, the Earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. He ended up being burnt at the stake for his heroic attempts to communicate science to the people. Alexander von Humboldt (1769–1859), a German naturalist and scientist, travelled to South America and Asia and spent the rest of his life writing and talking about his discoveries and science to ordinary people, as well as to the King of Prussia. With some exceptions, history shows that European scientists around the ‘age of enlightenment’ not only toiled on their research but also communicated it broadly. It seems as if enlightenment is coming back into fashion.