Paper short abstract:

The talk explains why public hostility towards scientists in the context of the coronavirus pandemic may have led to both an increased willingness to expose themselves publicly (fear control) and to withdraw from the public sphere and avoid social visibility (danger control).

Paper long abstract:

During the coronavirus pandemic, scientists who have dedicated their work to combating the virus have received great public attention and recognition. At the same time, their role as government advisors also provoked opposition and even open hostility. This proposal deals with the question of how the experience of the corona pandemic has affected the willingness of individual scientists to engage with the public. At first glance, both of the reactions suggested in the title seem similarly plausible. The perceived importance of public science communication in times of crisis may encourage researchers to increase their willingness to make public appearances. As a result, political efforts to increase public science communication may have received an additional boost. However, the observation that public engagement can be dangerous could just as well prompt scientists to avoid leaving the comparatively safe refuge of the scientific community. This would be a significant setback for the decades-long efforts for public engagement activities of scientists. The proposal makes three contributions to this unfinished debate: (1) It provides fresh data on the experiences of scientists at German universities and research institutions. (2) It extends the research beyond the group of those directly affected by examining the impact on scientists who have never spoken publicly about COVID-19 themselves (spillover effect). (3) It offers a theory-based explanation for the inconsistent evidence that previous studies on this topic have revealed. The contribution is based on a standardized survey of around 8,000 WoS authors affiliated with a German university or research institution.