aau/Tischler-BanfieldResearchers are increasingly expected to take on new roles. In addition to generating new knowledge through scientific methods and presenting it within their academic communities, they are also required to communicate their work to non-academic publics. In this context, researchers do not always encounter receptive audiences, particularly when they engage with socially contentious issues such as climate change, migration, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, vaccinations, the energy transition, or the fundamental principles of liberal democracy. Such engagement can give rise to personal attacks, ranging from defamation to explicit threats. To mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of the association Scholars at Risk, researchers and practitioners gathered on 26 January 2026 at the University of Klagenfurt to discuss how universities can support researchers when public engagement becomes not only critical but, at times, openly hostile.
Are these incidents merely rare exceptions affecting a small number of individuals, or do they indicate a problem of broader significance? At the outset of the discussion, Andreas Scheu, Professor of Science Communication and Science Journalism, presented findings from empirical research. Around half of the researchers surveyed in a German study reported having experienced personal hostility. An international study showed that more than two thirds of respondents had encountered negative reactions, while approximately one fifth had even been physically or sexually threatened. “Particularly alarming is the fact that attacks are increasingly not only carried out by individuals, but are in some cases organised by ideologically or politically motivated groups. This is a clear indication that we are dealing with a structural problem that must under no circumstances be left to individual researchers alone,” Andreas Scheu emphasised. Matthias Karmasin, Professor of Media and Communications and moderator of the panel, elaborated on the underlying causes: “It is evident that fact-based knowledge is under pressure. This reflects the highly fragmented public sphere in which we now operate. On the one hand, this situation is driven by platforms whose business models rely on the sale of personalised advertising and data mining, operating under the marketing-savvy label of social media. On the other hand, science no longer speaks for itself in the way it once did and now unfolds within a landscape of sharply conflicting interests.”
Jan Steinbrener, Vice-Rector for Research and International Affairs at the University of Klagenfurt, underlined the considerable societal relevance of the issue: “The most recent edition of the Academic Freedom Index shows that academic freedom is declining worldwide. Unfortunately, this trend is also evident in some regions that were long regarded as bastions of science. Even more troubling is the fact that half of the global population lives in systems in which academic freedom does not exist.” Because attacks are typically directed at individuals rather than institutions, it is essential to develop concrete mechanisms to support affected researchers. As Jan Steinbrener further noted: “Universities, as institutions within democratic societies, have a responsibility to safeguard academic freedom.”
From a practical standpoint, Romy Müller, who is responsible for research communication at the University of Klagenfurt, stressed that topics, formats, and communication channels must be selected strategically in order to reduce the risk of attacks: “Not every topic is suitable for discussion on social media platforms. Particularly in the case of trigger topics, it must be assumed that little or no communicative value can be gained in these environments. The unfortunate reality is that, in today’s media landscape, this can lead to some issues receiving less public visibility than others.” The silencing effects associated with this dynamic can be mitigated by turning to alternative formats: “In face-to-face conversations, one is generally not confronted with the hostility and defamation that are often encountered in online comment sections. For this reason, we also invest in formats that facilitate direct, personal exchange.” Despite negative reactions, science communication should not be abandoned, Romy Müller emphasised: “As a knowledge-based society, there is a great deal at stake. Every positive encounter therefore counts.” In this context, Jan Steinbrener pointed to the major achievements of science: “Even sceptics of science rely on smartphones, which are the product of rapid technological progress. This is an oxymoron in itself. Medical advances since the invention of antibiotics have been phenomenal and benefit even those who are fundamentally critical of science.” Such examples can be raised in dialogue, although meaningful exchange becomes difficult when facts are entirely ignored and no shared basis remains.
What options are available to researchers who are confronted with attacks and, in some cases, threats? Lena di Gaspero, a legal expert in the Legal Affairs Department of the University of Klagenfurt, explained: “Attacks can range from hate speech to insults, incitement, and defamation. From a legal perspective, it is therefore essential to clarify the facts of the case at an early stage, including whether a statutory offence may have been committed.” She pointed to a number of advisory services that are already in place. For example, the German association SciComm provides a guideline offering a wide range of practical recommendations: “Researchers receive guidance on how to produce legally robust screenshots, how best to document incidents, and how to obtain legal representation in order to take action against attacks.” In cooperation with SciComm, the University of Klagenfurt will therefore offer its first internal workshop on 26 March 2026, focusing on how to protect oneself against attacks and how to assert one’s legal rights. The Austrian Academy of Sciences has also established ‘Science Care’, an advisory service that provides support in such cases. Rapid and easily accessible assistance is crucial. In cases involving serious threats, stalking, or similar forms of attack, Lena di Gaspero emphasised that the police are the primary point of contact for acute situations.
Matthias Karmasin noted that legal remedies are not always easy to enforce: “We are dealing with international platforms that are often difficult to hold accountable. However, if it becomes necessary to identify a person operating behind a pseudonym, these platforms are indispensable.” Individual researchers frequently find themselves facing structures of overwhelming might. To ensure that advice and support are as accessible as possible, universities need centralised points of contact. Many researchers are still unsure where to turn; this gap can be addressed by establishing a clearly defined ‘one-stop shop’.
“If public-facing science is a strategic priority, it must also be institutionally safeguarded. This involves empowerment and awareness-raising in advance, professional support during public communication, and clear, reliable structures for situations in which communication escalates. Achieving this requires low-threshold points of contact, transparent procedures, and, above all, the explicit assumption of institutional responsibility, not only by individual universities but also by funding bodies and policymakers who actively call for science communication,” Andreas Scheu emphasised in his concluding remarks.
.flex_column.av-eo0bftz-a2547f3dce3cd8ff571a8343baa06bbe{
border-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;
padding:25px 25px 25px 25px;
}
#top .av-special-heading.av-mkwr3s1k-46d0c274d3aa87dafdb49ca8f14381e6{
margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;
padding-bottom:0;
}
body .av-special-heading.av-mkwr3s1k-46d0c274d3aa87dafdb49ca8f14381e6 .av-special-heading-tag .heading-char{
font-size:25px;
}
.av-special-heading.av-mkwr3s1k-46d0c274d3aa87dafdb49ca8f14381e6 .av-subheading{
font-size:15px;
}
About the event
Panel Discussion: “Truth Matters: Public Outreach and the Responsibility of Universities”
Monday, 26 January 2026 | 5 p.m. | Vorstufe Building at the University of Klagenfurt
Panellists:
- Jan Steinbrener (Vice-Rector for Research and International Affairs)
- Andreas Scheu (Department of Media and Communications, University of Klagenfurt, and Institute for Comparative Media and Communication Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences)
- Lena di Gaspero (Legal Affairs)
- Romy Müller (Uni Services, Research Communication)
The discussion was moderated by Matthias Karmasin (Department of Media and Communications, University of Klagenfurt, and Institute for Comparative Media and Communication Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences).
Der Beitrag Scholars at risk: how can universities protect researchers facing attacks? erschien zuerst auf University of Klagenfurt.