Fundamental reform is needed in the way scientific knowledge is conceptualised and communicated, argues Dr Tamara Elzein
Dr Tamara Elzein delivered a passionate keynote speech that challenged contemporary scientific paradigms at the recent 2024 World Science Forum (WSF) in Budapest, during the first plenary session “Trust in Science – Conceptualising Trust in Science”. The Secretary General of CNRS Lebanon also addressed the complex relationship between scientific advancement, school curricula and societal trust. The WSF sat down with Dr Elzein to elaborate on some of the ideas that came up in her talk.
Dr Elzein began with a reflection on the ethical responsibilities that scientists have in an era of escalating global tensions. Drawing on a powerful historical parallel, she referenced the moral reckoning of physicists following the detonation of the first atomic bombs, specifically mentioning Robert Oppenheimer’s encounter with President Truman where he acknowledged having “blood on his hands.” This historical moment serves as a poignant metaphor for the contemporary scientific landscape, where technological advancements are increasingly deployed in morally ambiguous and often outright destructive contexts.
The current conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon provided a stark backdrop to her critique. Elzein expressed deep disappointment in the scientific community’s silence, particularly in the realm of artificial intelligence. “Myself, I was very disappointed to see that scientists worldwide working on AI were so silent,” she emphasised.
The use of advanced technologies, including AI, to surveil and potentially harm civilian populations represents for her a real and critical ethical failure. The psychological dimensions of modern technological warfare, also linked to AI-based methodologies particularly troubles her. As drones can provide continuous surveillance, this represents more than a physical threat. It is an invasion of privacy that fundamentally alters the human experience.
Her criticism on the current state of scientific education was equally profound. She sees the current system being fundamentally broken from its earliest stages. Drawing on her personal experience and observations, she challenges the romantic narrative of scientific discovery that children are typically presented. “When I was a kid, in my mind, Marie Curie or Albert Einstein, all these famous people, they were in a lab and suddenly discovering something huge. And then when I went to the university and then I got to do my PhD, I realised that it’s a completely different story.”
This disconnect between the mythologised version of scientific discovery and its actual, complex reality is at the heart of her proposed educational reforms. She argues that current curricula focus almost exclusively on the final products of scientific research, completely neglecting the intricate, often non-linear process of scientific investigation. Her vision for educational reform, therefore, goes beyond simply adding more content to science classes.
She advocates for a fundamental transformation in how scientific knowledge is conceptualised and transmitted. “We should insist more on teaching how the process of science is ongoing, not the final product of science,” Dr Elzein argues. This approach would demystify scientific discovery, presenting it as an adventure of exploration and occasional failure.
In the current state the problems begin early, with educational systems forcing premature specialisation. “You have to choose between science or math or humanities. And for me, this is where scientific illiteracy begins,” she notes. This hyper-specialisation creates intellectual silos that prevent meaningful cross-disciplinary understanding and collaboration. Tracing the roots of the current educational model, Dr Elzein highlights its connection to post-World War II industrial management principles applied to how we manage knowledge industries. Some of these, like Taylorism, pioneered by Frederick Winslow Taylor, were inspired by industrial efficiency models.
The consequences of the Taylorist approach are profound. Even scientists within the same broader field sometimes end up having trouble communicating. “Now if you are in electrical chemistry, you might not understand colleagues in organic chemistry. This is really crazy, when you think about it.”
In her proposed reimagination of scientific curricula, children should be taught not just scientific facts, but would be exposed to the philosophy and methodology of scientific investigation from the earliest ages. “We should end this romantic image of science,” she insists. This means teaching students about the non-linear nature of scientific discovery, showing them that progress is not always straightforward, and that failures are an integral part of the scientific process.
The proposed educational reform might also help us to move beyond the dangerous concept of “scientism” – the belief that science can provide solutions to all problems. “In Europe and Western countries, we’ve shifted since the Middle Ages, from belief in religion to belief in science. And this is also very dangerous,” she warns. Students should understand that science is a powerful but limited tool, constrained by human knowledge, technological capabilities and inherent uncertainties.
Crucially, Dr Elzein believes this educational transformation must start early. “If you start at school at four or five years, it will become a new mindset,” she argues. Otherwise, it becomes almost impossible to achieve an effect, as mature people have more entrenched ideas and seldom change their worldviews.
For researchers in regions like Lebanon, the challenges of scientific research are also multi-layered. Dr Elzein articulates the profound dilemma faced by scientists in the Global South: the tension between local research needs and international academic recognition. “In human and social sciences, if you work on very local challenges, when you come to publish your work in international journals, no one will be willing to publish them. For the journals it is not a global issue.”
This creates a perverse incentive structure where local scientists are effectively discouraged from addressing their most immediate societal challenges. “Scientists then are really stuck between this duty to work on local challenges and their hope to be recognised internationally,” she explains. The result is a research ecosystem that feels increasingly disconnected from local realities and probably fuels the alienation of people from science and their distrust in scientists.
To address these systemic challenges, Dr Elzein has been proactively developing innovative approaches. At CNRS Lebanon, she has initiated programs that directly connect research priorities with government needs, creating funding calls that require universities to address specific local challenges. Preparing the field for this radical redesign of research funding, she initiated a process of directly consulting government ministries and other Lebanese institutions about their research priorities.
“We sent a questionnaire to ask them what do you need as research output? What do you think your current challenges are?” This approach transforms research from an abstract academic exercise to a targeted problem-solving endeavour while creating new avenues for interaction between scientists and decision-makers.
In order to promote dialogue across different disciplines, she organised unique “scientific meza” events. This creative initiative brought together researchers from different disciplines, and even non-scientist invitees, literally around the same communal table, creating a space for interdisciplinary dialogue. “As soon as we start asking questions about pollution, earthquakes, food security, climate change, we realise that even scientists from different horizons don’t speak the same language.”
The need for better communication emerges as a critical theme in Dr Elzein’s analysis. Scientists, she argues, often use unnecessarily complex terminology and jargon to create an air of mystique. “People would like to show that they are smart, clever, and that they have these notions and terms that are mysterious somehow. We should change this image.”
As Secretary General, she is also deeply critical of the current research ecosystem’s prioritisation of “innovation” over fundamental knowledge generation: she wonders whether there will be anyone who will do fundamental research if everybody wants to do innovation. This critique extends to the broader economic transformation of scientific institutions: influenced by neoliberal trends, universities and research centres are increasingly behaving like economic agents rather than knowledge seekers.
Dr Elzein calls for a return to a more holistic, interconnected approach to knowledge generation. This involves rebuilding trust through transparency, humility and a genuine commitment to enriching knowledge. “We should show that scientists are also human beings. They should be humble with simple citizens.”
Her message at the World Science Forum was clear: to rebuild trust in science, we must transform how we teach, practice and communicate scientific knowledge. This is a vision of science that rediscovers its roots as a collaborative, ethical, and profoundly human endeavour.