The harsh tone comes at a cost – and everyone loses

Research at the Faculty of Technical Sciences is often a subject of debate. Fundamentally, we see this as a stamp of quality, demonstrating that our research is socially relevant and impactful. The fact that the surrounding community is interested in our work is only positive.

As researchers, we understand that criticism is part and parcel of our work. It is entirely natural in our methodology to receive constructive, professional criticism. For instance, when our research results undergo peer review. The constructive criticism serves the important purpose of ensuring the quality of the research results, without targeting the researcher personally.

However, when criticism ceases to be constructive, it has consequences. We understand that, for example, interest groups have agendas they must pursue. They have their place in society just as we do in universities. With mutual respect for professionalism, this should never be a problem.

However, lately, we have seen examples where the focus shifts from the issue to the individual. Researchers are criticized solely because someone dislikes the research results. Our colleagues at the Department of Ecoscience, Stiig Markager, can attest to this. So can our colleague at the Department of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Steen H. Møller – and unfortunately, they are not the only ones.

We strongly oppose such personal attacks.

Opinion pieces without accountability

Mathilde Walter Clark has written a book focusing on the phasing out of the mink industry. The book's topic is undoubtedly relevant to society, but when reviewers in established media use terms like investigative journalism, even the author distances herself and refers to her book as fiction. By incorporating the researcher's specific knowledge, some of the misunderstandings that have arisen in the debate could have been avoided. However, in fiction, one is not bound by journalistic ethics.

Based on Mathilde Walter Clark's book, others have also approached the press. Gylle.dk is a website that hosts a variety of writers. One of the writers has discussed mink research in Denmark. Unfortunately, the focus here is on the individual rather than the issue. In our view, this does not contribute to a better climate for debate.

At the Faculty of Technical Sciences, we cannot and will not specifically address all opinion pieces in a debate. Similarly, we cannot comment on, for example, blog posts or discussions on Facebook. However, we are always interested in participating in debates conducted on a factual and fair basis. After all, it is through discussions and the exchange of knowledge that we all become wiser.

Debate climate under pressure

We frequently observe that the sometimes very harsh tone of the debate affects our colleagues. Skilled researchers with a natural interest in disseminating their results decline to participate in discussions. The tone has simply reached a level where the safest option is to stay completely out of the debate. It is already a significant problem, unfortunately still growing. And it is all of us who lose out because of it.

Representatives of the Faculty of Natural Sciences and the Legal Institute accurately describe the extent of the problem here. (In Danish)

There must and should be room for both sides in any debate. As mentioned earlier, this is a completely natural premise for the work of a researcher. But when the tone becomes unnecessarily harsh, when indecent statements are made, and when the researcher's person is the focal point instead of the research, then we all have an obligation to speak up clearly and unequivocally.

In a society like ours, we fortunately never agree on everything. But can't we at least speak politely to and about each other?