Learning from the past: A Conversation with Cristina Luís

For the first interview of our new series, "A Conversation with", we talked to Cristina Luís, a researcher at Centro Interuniversitário de História das Ciências e da Tecnologia (CIUHCT), Faculty of Sciences, University of Lisbon. She conducts research in the areas of citizen science, the history of citizen science, science communication, and science engagement. Cristina Luís is also a member of SciComPt, a Portuguese network for science and technology communication.

Cristina Luís

In your opinion, what are the most important and critical aspects of science communication that ensure good quality information nowadays in Europe? What do you think we should focus on?

"I think we should reflect on these issues of science communication, and I believe we increasingly need to understand the audiences we aim to reach. We really need time, as time is essential. We need to create spaces and opportunities to learn more about our audiences. We will never reach everybody, and we also need to consider this: it's like we want to reach everyone, but most of the time, we will not connect with the majority of people. 

To provide good-quality information, you need time to produce it. If those who work in science communication have the time to create high-quality content that reaches audiences and utilizes various media—be it exhibitions, social media, or other platforms—it can be disseminated across different outlets to reach as many audiences as possible. However, it is crucial to truly understand what your audiences require so that you can effectively engage with them.

To produce good information, you need time. It cannot be rushed because then you risk producing poor-quality information. Time is increasingly becoming a critical factor."

Basically, you say we need time to produce high-quality information, but we also need to allocate time to better understand our audiences' needs. So it's like two separate moments: the first one to understand who the audiences are and what they want, and then the second one to produce our output?

"Yes, two separate moments.

Another thing that I've learned (and this is based on my experience over the last few years working in the Department of History and Philosophy of Sciences) is that we should also look more into experiences from the past. It's like we are constantly reinventing the wheel when it has already been invented; it's there, and we have it. Many of the things happening now have happened before, and there were ways to counteract some of the issues that have arisen.

For example, during the latest pandemic: there was a significant pandemic at the beginning of the last century, and while the media and communication outlets were entirely different back then, what occurred was essentially the same. It would be very interesting if we could go back and observe what happened in the past - how it was communicated and what actions were taken regarding new findings on how to counteract pandemics.

We really need to connect more with our historical past; this is something we usually neglect. While we are focused on new technologies and innovations (and of course, we need to consider this because it's part of a new generation), it would be very beneficial to look further back and draw lessons from past experiences. This is something that tends to be forgotten."

When referring to pandemics, do you mean COVID-19 and the Spanish flu?

"Of course, and there are other examples... Every time we look at something, it feels like it's happening for the first time; it never happened before. No: let's learn a bit from other experiences (what was done then and how). Of course, things are entirely different now regarding media access for people, and attention spans are significantly reduced. We have all these factors to consider, so we must adapt while looking back at past experiences.

Additionally, we tend to have a constant drive for innovation. I have nothing against this; I'm all for creating new things. However, sometimes, we should examine what already exists and improve how we utilize our existing outlets. For instance, social media has been here for a long time, yet instead of enhancing the quality of information provided on specific platforms, we keep creating new ones."

But then I think that clashes with consumerism. It's not that we always want to open new accounts; if the media industry continues creating new platforms and tools, people will migrate there, and we must follow them—not necessarily because we want to. This pressure likely contributes to our complaints about never having enough time because external forces push us toward different outlets… Is this something from which we cannot escape?

"We need to adapt to that. Yes, we do.

Regarding consumerism, it's an economy in which we live. But as I mentioned earlier, time is essential; you need time to accomplish tasks effectively. Funding is also crucial for producing high-quality work because often there aren't enough people fully dedicated to science communication. Some professionals engage in it part-time; however, having more dedicated individuals can make a difference... You can see changes happening; I've worked in this field for 20 years now, and the environment has shifted dramatically due to financial investment and funding initiatives to enhance this area. You genuinely need funding to study your audiences and have personnel with sufficient time dedicated to producing high-quality science communication. We cannot overlook this necessity because money is a resource that enables access to other resources - namely human resources - which are essential for generating quality information."

When you mention needing money (a concern everyone likely shares), do you believe funding should come from the private sector or public spending?

"I was primarily referring to public funding, which should be significantly improved in this context. Not only for high-quality research - because even after pandemics made everyone realize how essential scientific developments are for our progress - funding for science remains unchanged; it didn't increase even after experiencing a pandemic...

Now that we exist within an informed society—not like in the early 20th century when many people didn't read news articles—everyone knows what's happening through live TV coverage. Even though scientists were frequently featured on television during the pandemic, this did not lead to increased funding for science or science communication efforts, but they are interconnected.