‘As a researcher, you only have one friend: the truth’
Through his research on green technology and life cycle analyses, Professor Henrik Wenzel knows the answer to the question of which green technologies we should invest in. However, his answers are not always terribly popular with industry or politicians.
Currently, Professor Henrik Wenzel is in the media almost every week, unfolding his research on waste sorting and explaining why it would be better for both the climate and our wallets if we stopped our thorough sorting of waste at home and let robots do the sorting at the recycling centre.
Henrik Wenzel gladly participates in public debates. He believes an important part of his job as a researcher in green technology is to share his knowledge on how best to solve the problems that climate challenges and environmental problems create for us.
- As researchers, our job is to present the results of our analyses so that decisions can be made on the right basis. And then you often have to accept that there will be a delay before things start moving in the most sensible direction, because industrial interests and concerns about voters’ opinions also play a role in the decision-making processes, explains Henrik Wenzel, professor at the Department of Green Technology.
Taking on the industry
Wenzel’s data-based life cycle analyses are not always terribly popular among the various industries which he examines. Some years ago, he noticed that some elements in the plastics industry tried to discredit him on social media – and he came up with an unconventional way to debate with the industry.
- I had a very clear feeling that having the debate in the comment section wouldn’t lead anywhere. So instead, I compiled my analyses and findings (https://1spand.nu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Opsummering-affaldssortering-Henrik-Wenzel-13-02-2023.pdf) on waste sorting, emailed them to 50–60 plastics industry actors and a number of colleagues and asked the industry for feedback on our findings. They returned with the usual – not particularly academically sound – arguments; but the criticism of my person stopped, says Henrik Wenzel.
On the whole, Wenzel has regularly brought his research findings into play in debates on topics that evoke strong emotions – such as nuclear power and organic farming. And he is very conscious of the fact that this places clear demands on both his research results and how they are communicated.
- As a researcher, you must be completely sure that your analyses are fully supported by data and facts when you participate in the public debate, particularly on the topic of technologies that will achieve success versus technologies that won’t make it, says Henrik Wenzel and adds:
- I focus on expressing myself neutrally and also fairly quietly when speaking in public. This is because the results of my analyses are typically unpopular with one half of the stakeholders and popular with the other half, says Henrik Wenzel.
Academic freedom requires strong ethics
At the same time, he makes a point of emphasising that throughout his research career he has enjoyed complete freedom to define his own research questions and take part in the public debate in his field – and this is absolutely crucial.
- As a researcher, you are driven by clarifying things and finding answers to important questions. One of the most important things – as one top Yale researcher once told me – is to find the right questions to investigate that will advance your field of research. If researchers do not have that freedom, their commitment will disappear, says Henrik Wenzel and elaborates:
- But you also have to realise that freedom presupposes a very high degree of research ethics. As a researcher, you only have one friend: the truth. It has to be an integral part of your identity as a researcher that you never defend wrong viewpoints or pursue conclusions that you know are wrong. And if another researcher makes a claim that is true, you have to back it up.
Ethics also plays an important role when Henrik Wenzel teaches the students at the Faculty of Engineering.
- In the classroom, I of course meet students who are passionate about a particular technology, and then we have to talk about it: In this place, opinions are not allowed; we base our analyses on transparent suppositions, and on the basis of them we reach conclusions, Henrik Wenzel states.
Academic freedom and the dilemmas of the future
On the question of whether the future holds greater challenges to academic freedom at universities, Henrik Wenzel singles out one challenge in particular: the participation of researchers in the public debate.
- It is a challenge that the gap between different points of view is constantly widening in the echo chambers of social media. It is a real problem that we no longer have a media system with a duty to tell the truth and that the keyboard warriors, who have plenty of time and strong emotions, get all the attention.
This is why Wenzel does not participate in debates on social media. Instead, he finds other channels through which to participate in the public debate.