Categories
Inside Research Luxembourg Latest news

Scientific evidence is not an opinion

Science please!

Traditionally, scientific evidence serves as a foundation for novel hypotheses, innovations, and, conveniently, for making informed political decisions. While this process is usually limited to a few, the Covid-19 pandemic has suddenly thrown us all into it.

More than ever, explaining what scientific processes entail and what scientific evidence is to the public at large has become critical.

Why does scientific evidence make it difficult for researchers, decision-makers, the media and the public at large to manage? What challenges does a pandemic pose for science? How can we all contribute to making scientific evidence widely shared?

Even when research is compelling, personal opinion may trump scientific thinking. Case in point: speculation about the origin of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has persisted since the beginning of the pandemic, spawning misinformation and conspiracy theories. This type of debate may occur when we choose to believe a personal opinion over scientific evidence or statistics.

Understanding scientific evidence

Anyone can have an opinion, formulate it as a statement and try to back it up. Scientists also make assertions, called hypotheses. But in science, every claim must be supported by what is called evidence. In other words, such evidence must be confirmed by recognised, ongoing scientific methods and critically reviewed to confirm, refine or reject it.

Scientific evidence is an ongoing process. Seeking truth, i.e. guaranteed knowledge, is emerging slowly. Along the way, it is not unusual to find out that on some points the hypotheses were wrong and need to be revised. In fact, scientific evidence is usually the result of a large number of studies, conducted by different scientists. And the truth is then a consensus that prevails at a given date among the majority of scientists.

Scientific evidence is a continuum

Scientific evidence is often a consensus of the majority of scientists at a given time. It is therefore not unusual for scientists to change their minds or positions. Indeed, evidence is constantly being supplemented by new findings, refined and sometimes turned down.

What is a common process for scientists can be very confusing for decision makers and the public.

Why is a pandemic such a challenge for scientists?

Finding answers is part of research and researchers are constantly seeking new evidence, knowledge, the truth. They do not only communicate and discuss possible uncertainties or the strengths and weaknesses of their studies among themselves, but in the current crisis they had to share them with the public.

In the situation of a pandemic, we are faced with a dilemma: science needs time, but political decisions cannot wait.

Science is not simple

Science is a process of learning and discovery. Finding out that what we thought was right is then wrong is part of research.

Scientific evidence is often tainted with uncertainty. In public debates that are based on scientific evidence, this poses challenges. Scientists might not always say whether something is completely right or wrong.

The responsibility of politicians, journalists and individuals is to take into account the complete range of information available and to make decisions based on probabilities.

Science cannot provide absolute truths. But its mission is to bring us ever closer.

Scientists may find it important to communicate more clearly about what is known and what is not known and to define what uncertainties go along with evidence.

Translated extracts from “Que sait la science? L’évidence scientifique en temps de pandémie” published on Science.lu

Similar articles

Luxembourg pioneering in narrative CV for researchers

How can academics craft compelling research statements? How can evaluators recognise the diversity of researchers and their outputs? How can funders and institutions move away from flawed quantitative indicators of research quality towards a more detailed view of research contributions? Originally created by the Royal Society – the UK’s national academy of science – together…

Keep reading
Categories
Inside Research Luxembourg Latest news

Luxembourg pioneering in narrative CV for researchers

 New narrative-based CV for researchers.

A new narrative-based CV that highlights skills and experiences better than a portfolio of grants and publications is underway. The template encourages researchers to explain how they have contributed to knowledge creation, to individuals’ development, to the wider research community and to society at large.

How can academics craft compelling research statements? How can evaluators recognise the diversity of researchers and their outputs? How can funders and institutions move away from flawed quantitative indicators of research quality towards a more detailed view of research contributions?

Originally created by the Royal Society – the UK’s national academy of science – together with the Declaration on Research Assessment, the Resume for Researchers is a narrative-based CV which seeks to widen the range of things which researchers and innovators are valued for.

Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR) is one of the few funding agencies piloting narrative CVs in evaluation.

Giving credit to the diversity of researchers’ types

With the narrative CV, there is more attention paid to a researcher’s skills and abilities than to a chronological list of publications. It gives people the opportunity and the credit to have different types of careers, and to describe the experiences and skills they have developed as well as the achievements they are most proud of. These CVs can be tailored to each proposal, highlighting the specific accomplishments that are most applicable for the project.

The narrative CV format aims to give credit to both the diversity of researchers as well as what comes out of research. This provides evaluators and panel members a broader and more comprehensive view of the value, quality, and potential impact of researchers’ work, as well as its suitability and relevance to a funding programme.

Narrative-based CVs to encourage inclusivity

Overall, the initiative could be a useful tool to help reduce bias in recruitment, promotion, and grant funding.

Gender biases affect women in science at different stages, whether in the hiring process, in funding and awards, or during the peer review stage.

Reduced publication opportunities for women due to family obligations also lead to fewer citations.

The new format includes career breaks, contribution to knowledge, to the professional development of other researchers, to the research community and to society in general, and a personal statement. The inclusion of career breaks gives an opportunity for applicants to tell their story. The inclusion of career breaks, including family responsibilities, illness and changes of sector or discipline, is important as it allows reviewers to take into account non-research time when assessing the performance of applicants.

Researchers are more than just papers and grants

FNR is one of the only agencies requiring narrative-based CVs across all of their programmes. This requirement came into effect in 2021, and the FNR has conducted a feedback survey for both applicants and reviewers, to understand the usefulness and clarity of the narrative CV.

So far 182 applicants and 134 reviewers have given feedback, with a generally positive response to the change. A more complete overview of the data will be openly communicated in Fall 2021.

“The idea is to allow researchers to have a broader range of outputs (beyond grants and papers) recognised, and to provide context for evaluation criteria for our evaluators.”

“You are more than just your papers and grants, and this should be recognised!”

Sean Sapcariu



Sean Sapcariu is a Programme Manager at the Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR), responsible for the biomedical research domain.

More about FNR grants

Similar articles

Big Data that respects privacy

A mathematician develops new algorithms that allow the analysis of encrypted data without ever having to decipher it—a crucial point to ensure their confidentiality. This article was originally published by the Luxembourg National Research Fund The development of contact tracing applications during the COVID-19 epidemic quickly split society in two. Some were willing to sacrifice…

Keep reading

Better schooling to prevent dementia 70 years later

Anja Leist wants to find out how to resist the decline of our cognitive abilities in old age. Her international research has already achieved a first result: improving education helps prevent problems occurring decades later. This article was originally published by the Luxembourg National Research Fund Old age comes with physical and mental challenges, including…

Keep reading

War as an electoral weapon

Politicians and voters in the countries of Ex-Yugoslavia are still referring to conflicts which happened two decades ago. A political scientist wants to understand why and how to let go of the past. This article was originally published by the Luxembourg National Research Fund When French president Emmanuel Macron addressed the Coronavirus epidemic on 16…

Keep reading