The corona virus has completely changed our everyday life. From home schooling to a ban on visiting nursing homes and changes in, or loss of work cultures, the entire population had to limit itself in various ways. In order to regain stability, society and politics have looked more than ever before to scientific findings. "As a result, expectations have also risen dramatically," emphasizes Karen Kastenhofer, who researches the effects of newly emerging technologies on society at the Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW).

Together with Sylvia Knapp (Professor of Infection Biology at the Medical University of Vienna) and Klaus Schuch (Scientific Director at the Centre for Social Innovation ZSI), Kastenhofer discussed "A "new normality" for science and research?" at the Club Research on 18 June. For the first time in the history of the club, a virtual audience was also present. Listen here.

"It's suddenly okay not to know something"

"Hardly ever before has science been in the limelight of the public in such a way, hardly ever before has science been given such a leap of faith," emphasizes club director and moderator Johannes Steiner. So what does the new normality look like in everyday science?

For Kastenhofer, this opens up new possibilities: "It is suddenly okay to discuss non-knowledge in public. I find this very positive and a good learning opportunity. We experience that the corona crisis mobilises different disciplines such as medicine but also the social sciences. I see the role of technology assessment, especially now, as a mediator between individual scientific disciplines, politics and society, in ensuring a balance and a comprehensive processing of the results, so that we do not always listen to just a few, but integrate a variety of qualified results".

"I find it incredibly important that we have established a good connection between science, evidence and politics. We succeeded in doing this during the Corona crisis, and this also creates greater understanding among the population," says Klaus Schuch. „Now, of course, we have to be careful that budgets for necessary research work are maintained.“ Sylvia Knapp adds: "I am pleased that people and the media have dealt with knowledge in such a productive way. Today, everyone knows what a reproduction number is and that is an achievement.“ Experts, for their part, are called upon to contribute to the understanding of scientific statements within their disciplines, because "not all virologists are virologists", says Knapp.

From a virological to an economic phase

For Karen Kastenhofer it is understandable that the search for quick solutions has developed into a critical debate. While the first phase was mainly concerned with epidemiological and virological aspects, other questions are now moving to the fore, such as social justice or economic viability. "In the beginning it was all about saving lives. Now our focus is shifting again and we are beginning to ask how the new system can work. This is a healthy, democratic response." Even decision makers* should stop now and look at viable ways to create a future with Corona.

"The natural sciences enjoy a high status among the population", adds Klaus Schuch. "But the economy and the social sciences have also proved their worth in the crisis. They deal with research on violence, education, new forms of work, etc. We should continue this. But politics must also empower science to find new ways. This applies not only to biotechnology, but also to the social sciences“, says Schuch. (DR)