Exploring key issues in public engagement and activism. Findings of a working group at the University of Lausanne.

The growing involvement of researchers in the public debate is triggering reflections in various scientific institutions. Here we report on the reflections of a working group of the University of Lausanne (UNIL) gathering researchers from all faculties, coordinated by the Competence Centre in Sustainability (CCD) and the Interdisciplinary Centre for Ethics Research (CIRE). Commissioned by UNIL’s Rectorate, the working group met thirteen times between April 2020 and May 2022 and independently defined the themes, approaches and methods that it deemed relevant to mobilize in this perspective. In particular, it conducted a literature review, a survey and focus groups with the UNIL community in the spring of 2021.

The working group's reflections were primarily aimed at clarifying the issues related to the engagement of scientists in the public debate and at better understanding the practices and perceptions of the UNIL community in this respect. They also aimed to propose answers to questions such as: should researchers be free to engage in public advocacy and activism? Is this compatible with the swiss legal framework and with notions such as science neutrality and academic freedom? What good practices should be followed when engaging in advocacy and/or activism? How should UNIL, as an institution, support its engaged researchers?

The main conclusion of the working group, published in a report in May 2022, is that participation in the public debate, advocacy and activism is compatible with research activities and as such should be supported by the academic institutions. However, it recommends a few good practices such as being as transparent as possible about the role that is endorsed (expert, researcher, activist, etc.) and about the nature of the statements that are made in public (scientific findings, personal opinion, political recommendation, etc.). In this brief oral, I will delve into the main conclusions of the working group’s report and address the questions mentioned above.