Ever since man has existed, he has been searching for what we call “truth”. He tries to understand reality, he tries to find it, he looks for different perspectives on the world as it is. These insights, gained according to strict formal rules that are above all comprehensible to everyone, are then intended to benefit people in their daily lives.

Not only in medicine, to which I have dedicated my life, but above all when it comes to the administration of justice, citizens expect an unprejudiced search for truth and knowledge.

This is precisely why judges seek the help of experts, such as forensic experts, to clarify the cases entrusted to them. They are commissioned by the court to gather facts and assess them with their expertise. The expert uses their expertise to draw conclusions on a scientific basis and present them to the court. Their conclusions must be comprehensible to everyone.

Particularly when it comes to solving crimes – especially crimes against life and limb – society rightly expects an unbiased and comprehensible clarification of the circumstances by experts, whose assessment must leave no room for doubt. Otherwise the peace function of the law will not work.

The rulers had already recognized this in the 16th century. In 1532, Emperor Charles V issued the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina, a kind of code of criminal procedure. Paragraph 149 regulates the “inspection of a corpse before burial”. It prescribes the involvement of “one or more physicians” in order to clarify the circumstances of the death. Even in matters of medical malpractice, the “advice of the experts” had to be obtained if “such a doctor kills by his medicine”. As we can see, medical experts and their scientific and academic work were held in very high esteem even 500 years ago. Empiricism, not superstition, was in demand.

Above all, this trust is also a mandate for science. It is an obligation to professionally investigate the truth in the service of humanity and – it may sound pathetic – justice. This is another reason why the public places great trust in forensic experts.

We now live in a world that has set very high scientific standards as the basis for establishing the truth. At the same time, parts of the population that should not be underestimated are increasingly critical, even hateful, of science. Trust in science is also dwindling. This is not only due to increasingly complex research, but also to the way we – and our representatives – communicate and inform ourselves. In recent decades, people – also under the influence of modern information technologies – have found it increasingly difficult to trust when it comes to the question of what could be truth or lies, illusion or reality.

At a time when public discourse is increasingly polarized by populists and destroyed by lies, we are faced with the existential question of how scientific knowledge can be communicated and understood in a democratic society.

Science must, at least in my view, become “popular” again, it must be a piece of “popular science”, leave the often invoked ivory tower and learn to speak simply and understandably.

However, making complex scientific topics accessible to the general public in order to educate them is no longer so easy. This is because populism uses misleading arguments to generate emotional reactions and pursue ideological goals. It even mocks and ridicules science, as we have painfully experienced in recent years. “The professors are the enemy”, said the newly elected US Vice President J.D. Vance. We experienced this not least during the corona period.

However, given the rapid scientific advances in areas such as climate change, genetic engineering and artificial intelligence, it is of almost existential importance for all of us who make political decisions to have a sound knowledge of a wide range of topics.

To do this, we need scientists who can communicate their findings in an understandable way. Especially in those public arenas in which the population forms its political opinion – on the internet.

This creates a dilemma. In order to make a career in science, many colleagues have to concentrate on their publications in specialist journals instead of presenting their important findings to the wider public. There, a complicated technical language is spoken that is increasingly incomprehensible to the layperson.

My appeal is that scientists must also (re)learn to get the public and politicians excited about their topics. They must stimulate discourse, even controversy – in generally understandable terms. They must not only “create knowledge”, but also strengthen trust in science again. In the good old sense of the word: enlighten.

Science that wants to be heard must therefore also be “popular science”. This does not mean that experts exaggerate their findings in a populist way. It means that they learn to talk about them in an understandable way. At best, a scientist must be a “public intellectual”. To stay in my world: an expert witness not only has to write an expert opinion based on scientific criteria, he must also be able to explain it to lay judges.

My appeal is that popular science formats must increasingly form a bridge between the scientific community and the general public in the future. So let’s put pessimism aside for a moment: the new media – YouTube, social media podcasts – also offer completely new and fascinating opportunities to present scientific findings in an understandable and appealing way, without neglecting the complexity of the topics!

We scientists can also make greater use of science journalists, who are trained in translating our technical jargon into generally understandable language. Many of them help to strengthen the public’s scientific understanding and ability to reflect critically.

Populists exploit ignorance, uncertainty and the fueled mistrust of science. Populists rely on simple, often emotionally charged messages that are directed against the “elites” – including scientists. In this context, science is often portrayed as inscrutable, elitist or even corrupt and manipulative. By questioning or distorting scientific findings, populist actors attempt to support their political agendas.

Social media is playing an increasingly important role in this. They provide fertile ground for the spread of half-truths and conspiracy theories. The algorithm-based structure of these platforms favors content that evokes strong emotional reactions – a tactic that populism is a master of. Scientific content, on the other hand, which is often nuanced and complex, is less popular in this environment.

This is where science journalists, authors and communicators are called upon to find innovative ways to make science more present to the public. Storytelling, visual presentation and the integration of interactive elements can help to make scientific content more accessible and attractive. It is also important to strengthen the media skills of the population – including older people! – so that people are better able to distinguish between well-founded information and populist slogans. Educational institutions for all age groups should focus more on teaching critical thinking and scientific methods.

Overall, the battle between popular science and populism must remain a central aspect of the modern knowledge society. It is about nothing less than the question of what role knowledge and reason should play in shaping our future.

Science has the potential to counter populism by empowering people to think for themselves and understand the world in all its complexity. However, this requires continuous engagement and innovative approaches in science communication. Aude sapere!

Christian Reiter is Austria’s best-known forensic legal expert. Together with Florian Klenk, he hosts the Falter podcast “Klenk+Reiter”, which is one of the most successful online productions in Austria. In it, they report on the most spectacular cases in Austrian criminal history over the past 40 years, but also on historical cases,  musically accompanied by Ernst Molden. In 2024, Zsolnay published “Über Leben und Tod” (On Life and Death), the book to the podcast.