The prestigious magazine Věda a Výzkum (Science and Research) recently featured an article titled “Lze dělat vědu jinak? Ano, či ne?” (“Can Science Be Done Differently? Yes, or No?”) by Prof. Michal Lošťák, the principal investigator of the BETTER Life project and first vice-rector of CZU. The article highlights BETTER Life as an innovative initiative reshaping scientific research in the Czech Republic. Addressing the central question, BETTER Life proves that the answer is a resounding “yes.”
BETTER Life bridges theory and practice, fostering collaboration between academia, industries, and international partners. By prioritizing practical outcomes, it ensures research translates into solutions that improve lives.
Key principles of BETTER Life include encouraging cross-disciplinary and global partnerships, focusing on research that solves real-world challenges, and adapting methods to meet society’s evolving needs.
BETTER Life demonstrates that science can be more impactful, inclusive, and transformative. By doing science differently, it paves the way for a better, more sustainable future. Read the full article in Czech language here: Michal Lošťák: Lze dělat vědu jinak? Ano, či ne?, or find the English translation below:
Is It Possible to Do Science Differently?
This headline may sound strange to some. The surprise, however, is expressed within the question itself – whether it is possible, or not possible, to do science differently than it has been done for centuries. Scientists approach the external world, which is the center of their research activities, from the perspective of specially prepared individuals. They possess a unique language and methods that are not accessible to ordinary common sense but require long-term professional cultivation, constant reflection, and refinement. Those who engage in scientific work explore the world around us using these methods (they interact with it) to bring new and innovative discoveries that help us better understand the surrounding world, with the aim of ensuring future prosperity for humanity.
This centuries-old way of doing science is based on a particular position where those conducting scientific research can only act if they are separated from the world they are studying. Scientists are thus in a position where they should not be a part of the world they are examining, in order for their scientific findings to be objective. This is how science has functioned for centuries, bringing progress to humanity. Therefore, it is logical to ask: why should science be done any differently?
The Better Life project (Bringing Excellence to Transformative Engaged Research in Life Sciences through Integrated Digital Centres), supported by the Horizon program, demonstrates that the answer to the question posed in the headline can indeed be “yes.” As suggested by the project’s title, it is transformative because it changes the concept of doing science and directly engages scientists in the world they are studying. Scientists do not stand apart from the world they are researching; rather, they are part of it, alongside other stakeholders. People from the scientific community move beyond the boundaries of their disciplines and employ transdisciplinary approaches. Science is not only shaped by scientists but is co-created with others, including various representatives of society, civil sectors, government, local administration, and businesses of various sizes, turnovers, and sectors.
The Better Life project contributes to a shift in the perspective of how science can be done. The key phrase here is “how science can also be done.” This does not mean that science must only be done in a transdisciplinary manner. Rather, the Better Life project creates a foundation for young scientists to work in a different way when needed and more beneficial, especially when faced with highly complex phenomena, such as the challenges of today, which our university is also confronting. These challenges include climate change, biodiversity loss, digitalization, artificial intelligence, food security, sovereignty, socioeconomic inequalities, economic crises, innovation, and the need to preserve vibrant rural communities. When the original paradigm of science emerged, with scientists standing apart from the world they studied, such challenges did not exist. The problems we face today are far more complex than those of the past, and this complexity requires new approaches to their examination. This is where the transdisciplinary approach, involving scientists directly in the world they inhabit, proves essential.
However, this involvement—this transdisciplinarity—not only requires cooperation among scientists from different scientific disciplines (especially between natural sciences, technical fields, and social sciences) but also equitable collaboration with individuals outside of the scientific world. Only by working together in this way can we respond to the challenges we face. The connection between the scientific community and people outside it helps eliminate the “freeloader effect,” where some feel excluded or that their opinions, no matter how strange or nonsensical, are ignored.
Doing science in this way is not easy and requires certain tools. Some of these, in digital form, are being developed by the Better Life project (for example, the “Academic Bridge,” which allows scientists and local communities to connect digitally and solve problems together). Young scientists also have the opportunity to receive mentoring on how to prepare and conduct such transdisciplinary research. So, if you are interested in learning how to do science differently, visit the Better Life project website, especially its section dedicated to the Digital Centre of Excellence. This center serves as a support system for transitioning to a new way of doing science. Or, you may reach out directly to the author of this text.
Prof. Michal Lošťák, First Vice-Rector of Czech University of Life Sciences (CZU)