Why we need scientists to reclaim the public square
By Professor Dato Dr Ahmad Ibrahim
From the unproven cures peddled during COVID-19 to the modern, evidence-starved panic over radiation threats from rare earths processing, we are witnessing a global crisis of truth. These aren’t just harmless misconceptions. They are weapons used to further political agendas, sow public terror, and paralyze the very policies designed to protect us. Yet, in the face of this onslaught, there is a void. The scientific experts are largely absent from the battlefield. Their silence in the public square is creating a vacuum. It is being filled by charlatans, and those who profit from confusion. If we are to survive this era of disinformation, we need to fundamentally rethink how we deploy our best minds.
We must confront the uncomfortable truth: the “ivory tower” has become a prison. For generations, scientists have been rewarded for publishing in obscure, peer-reviewed journals and communicating to a tiny audience of their peers. This culture is the enemy of public understanding. When a physicist refuses to engage with a local community worried about a new rare Earths processing plant because the debate isn’t “scientific enough,” they are ceding ground to the very forces of irrationality they despise.
We need a cultural shift in academia and research institutions. We must elevate public communication from a volunteer hobby to a core professional duty. Just as we measure a researcher’s grant money and publication count, we should measure their “Public Impact Score.” Universities should establish rapid-response units of trusted experts who can be deployed to local news channels, community town halls, and social media platforms within hours of a viral fake-news outbreak. We cannot wait for the next paper to be published; we need to fight the fire in real-time.
Secondly, we must stop expecting the public to come to us. The days of “if you build it, they will come” are over. The public is not going to dig through PubMed to find out if 5G towers cause cancer. The information needs to be where the people are: on TikTok, on YouTube, in the comments sections of conspiracy forums. We need a new generation of science communicators who are not just brilliant in the lab, but brilliant performers. Think of the late Anthony Bourdain, not as a chef, but as a cultural anthropologist. We need the scientific equivalent—people who can make the physics of radiation or the biology of mRNA as compelling and accessible as a travel documentary.
We need to fund this. Imagine a “Public Science Corps”—a government-funded initiative, insulated from political pressure, that trains young PhDs in media, debate, and narrative storytelling. Their job isn’t just to lecture, but to listen, to empathize with public fears, and to dismantle bad arguments with patience and, when necessary, humor.
Thirdly, we have to fight fire with fire by regulating the platforms that serve as the delivery system for this fake science. For too long, social media algorithms have optimized for outrage, not accuracy. A sensational, false claim about vaccine dangers spreads faster and wider than a dry, nuanced correction. We cannot rely solely on the goodwill of tech billionaires. Governments must step in to enforce transparency in algorithmic amplification and hold platforms accountable for consistently promoting known disinformation, especially in matters of public health and safety. If a video contains demonstrably false claims about a nuclear facility’s safety, the platform should not be algorithmically boosting it to “increase engagement.”
Finally, we must rebuild the bridge of trust. The current model often positions scientists as the arbiters of truth looking down on an ignorant populace. This breeds resentment. Instead, we need to model scientific thinking itself—showing the public how we know what we know, not just telling them what we know. We need to admit when we are uncertain, explain the process of evolving evidence, and separate the consensus from the speculation. When a community is afraid of a “radiation threat” from a new industry, experts shouldn’t just dismiss the fear. They should sit down with Geiger counters, explain how they work, take readings together, and let the community see the evidence with their own eyes.
The stakes could not be higher. A public confused by science is a public that cannot consent to its own governance. It is a public that will reject life-saving vaccines, block the infrastructure needed for a clean energy future, and fall prey to authoritarians who offer simple lies over complex truths. The scientific experts have the knowledge. Now, they must find the courage to leave their labs, enter the arena, and fight for the truth. Their silence is a luxury we can no longer afford.
The author is affiliated with the Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy Studies at UCSI University and is an Adjunct Professor at the Ungku Aziz Centre for Development Studies, Universiti Malaya. He can be reached at ahmadibrahim@ucsiuniversity.edu.my.