From science communication to systemic public deception: The case of the ITER big science project

Abstract

This commentary reviews conflicts of interest which science mediators may encounter in their professional activities within the field of public communication of science and technology. The case of the ITER project (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) illuminates how political decisions, public affairs, management pressures and scientific misconduct may undermine communication and the course of public scientific research. Although some of these issues specifically stem from the fact that the ITER project supports a ‘political technology’, they broadly reflect, perhaps in a caricatural mode, pathologies from which most research organisations and public science projects may suffer. Clearly, these problems have implications that go well beyond science communication. Scientific research today is carried out in organisations which have policy-related, strategic and even political objectives. Furthermore, science and technology are today highly competitive fields, inching increasingly closer to business and politics. This situation may encourage managers to act in a way that is far removed from the level of integrity we have come to expect in the scientific world. Therefore, professional integrity – not just scientific integrity – must be explicitly covered by employee contracts, and staff regulations and codes of conduct of scientific organisations and public research projects are needed to protect the integrity of science as a whole.

Keywords

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor politics research projects science communication science policy whistleblower

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bell

(1998) The deadly sins of high technology. Paris: Seuil, p. 352.

Broks

(2017) Science communication: Process, power and politics. JCOM 16(4): C02.

Carver

(2014) Public communication from research institutes: Is it science communication or public relations? JCOM 13(3): C01.

Claessens

(2014) Research institutions: Neither doing science communication nor promoting ‘public’ relations. JCOM 13(3): C01.

Claessens

(2022) ITER: A systemic drift. Critique de la science et du scientisme ordinaire, 3 March. Available at: https://sniadecki.wordpress.com/2022/03/03/claessens-iter-en/

Claessens

(2023) ITER: The Giant Fusion Reactor – Bringing a Sun to Earth. Cham: Springer, p. 265. Available at: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-37762-4

Clery

(2022) Out of gas – A shortage of tritium fuel may leave fusion energy with an empty tank. Science, 23 June. Available at: https://www.science.org/content/article/fusion-power-may-run-fuel-even-gets-started

Elken

Stensaker

Dedze

(2018) The painters behind the profile: The rise and functioning of communication departments in universities. Higher Education 76: 1109–1122.

Feldwish-Drentrup

(2019) German university finds ‘severe’ misconduct by researcher who promoted questionable cancer blood test. Science, 25 October. Available at: https://www.science.org/content/article/german-university-finds-severe-misconduct-researcher-who-promoted-questionable-cancer

10.

Fürst

Vogler

Sörensen

Schäfer

(2022) Communication of higher education institutions: Historical developments and changes over the past decade. Studies in Communication Sciences 22(3): 459–469.

11.

IAEA (2007) Agreement on the establishment of the ITER International Fusion Energy Organization for the joint implementation of the ITER project. Available at: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/2007/infcirc702.pdf

12.

ITER Newsline (2022) The B1M construction channel visits ITER, 25 April. Available at: https://www.iter.org/fr/whatsnew/340

13.

ITER Organization (2017) World’s most complex machine is 50 percent completed. Available at: https://www.iter.org/sites/default/files/media/2017_12_fifty_percent.pdf

14.

ITER Organization (2022) 30th ITER Council: Continuing progress during a time of challenge and transition. Available at: https://www.iter.org/sites/default/files/media/2022_06_ic-30.pdf

15.

Jassby

(2021) Fusion Frenzy- A recurring pandemic. Physics & Society 50(4): 5–9. Available at: https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/APS/a05ec1cf-2e34-4fb3-816e-ea1497930d75/UploadedImages/P_S_OCT21.pdf

16.

Krivit

(2017) Evidence of the ITER power deception. New Energy Times, 11 December. Available at: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2017/12/11/evidence-of-the-iter-power-deception/

17.

Krivit

(2022a) European ITER domestic agency removes director. New Energy Times, 13 June. Available at: https://news.newenergytimes.net/2022/06/13/european-iter-domestic-agency-removes-director/

18.

Krivit

(2022b) Without fuel, the fusion game is over. New Energy Times, 18 July. Available at: https://news.newenergytimes.net/2022/07/18/without-fuel-the-fusion-game-is-over/

19.

Le Canard Enchaîné (2021) ITER, a “com” experimental reactor, 27 October.

20.

Martin

(1992) Scientific fraud and the power structure of science. Prometheus 10(1): 83–98. Available at: https://documents.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/92prom.html

21.

Reinders

(2021) The Fairy Tale of Nuclear Fusion. Cham: Springer, p. 650. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64344-7#about

22.

Robertson

(2020) On social change, agency, and public interest: What can science communication learn from public relations? JCOM 19(2): Y01.

23.

Trench

(2017) Universities, science communication and professionalism. JCOM 16(5): C02.

24.

Trench

Bucchi

(2010) Science communication, an emerging discipline. JCOM 9(3): C03.

25.

Väliverronen

Sihvonen

Laaksonen

S-M

Koskela

(2022) Branding the ‘wow-academy’: The risks of promotional culture and quasi-corporate communication in higher education. Studies in Communication Sciences 22(3): 493–513.

26.

Weingart

Joubert

Connoway

(2021) Public engagement with science—Origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy. PLoS ONE 16(7): e0254201.