Twenty years ago, he was ridiculed as a scientist when he tried to communicate with the general public. Now, Ignaas Devisch is receiving the Science Communication Career Award for it. "It's wonderful recognition," says the medical philosopher. "Although communicating about science also involves learning to listen well."
Congratulations on the Science Communication Career Award. What does that mean for a philosopher?
“It's a wonderful recognition. When I started as a professor at the university twenty years ago, science communication was practically nonexistent. There were a few colleagues who gave lectures, but that was all. In fact, it was looked down upon. When I told colleagues that I also wanted to bring our work to the public, they turned up their noses. ‘You're not going to waste time on that, are you?’”
When did you first realize the need to translate scientific insights for a broad audience?
You should know that I have a PhD in political philosophy. After some wanderings and a bit of chance, I started working at the medical faculty of Ghent University. They were looking for someone to focus on ethics. Doctors are trained to solve acute problems – and fortunately, they're good at it. I felt it was important that doctors also reflect on their own position, on where we want healthcare to go. These issues deserve a broader debate. And doctors themselves are increasingly convinced of this, by the way.
You sparked one of these debates in 2013 with your book "Sick of Health." In it, you wrote that the obsession with health doesn't make us healthier or happier. Were you surprised by the book's success?
"Yes, because a collection of books is generally not read very often. But this one hit like a bombshell. I had apparently struck a chord."
What explains the book's success?
"Recognizability. There's a tipping point somewhere between working preventively on your health and obsessing over it. I've described that tipping point in the book. There's no upper limit to how much you can or should focus on your health: you can never really do enough. That's the tricky part. You stop smoking, stop drinking, you eat less candy, you eat healthy twice a week. But why not three times? And why not exercise a little more? People constantly feel like they're falling short. Are they doing enough to live a healthy life? Our grandparents never asked themselves that question."
Why not?
They were healthy until the doctor proved otherwise. Sometimes you could fix it, sometimes it was too late. Now we know better. That's good. At the same time, we sometimes worry unnecessarily, especially because we have so much information about our health these days. That's a good thing, but there's a downside: the more we can test for all sorts of abnormalities, the greater the uncertainty. Am I or my child still healthy?
"Er bestaat geen bovengrens aan hoeveel je met je gezondheid kan of moet bezig zijn: je kunt eigenlijk nooit genoeg doen. Dat is het lastige eraan."
Is it your job as a science communicator to make that uncertainty a topic of discussion?
“We can always strive to do more and better, but ultimately we will always fall short. Our job is to explain that pursuing perfection is doomed to failure. That we must therefore learn to deal with things that don't work out. That we shouldn't be too quick to judge others when something doesn't work out.”
In your case, science communication is making a societal shift tangible and recognizable.
Yes, that's also the core of philosophy. For me, ethics is a question: how should I act? Because I don't know. We no longer know what is good and evil, because it's no longer imposed on us. That's fantastic. We can search for it ourselves. The result is that you no longer have any guarantees. There's no conclusive existential reward. No certainty that good people live healthier and longer, or that bad people die earlier. Philosophy starts from sharing that question and that uncertainty. There are answers to be found, but they change with the times. They don't eliminate all uncertainty.
The fact that we struggle with this uncertainty is evident, among other things, from the rampant disinformation. We yearn for answers, and science appears unable to provide them.
I wrote my last book about it: "We're Overinforming Ourselves." Imagine you have an itch on your back that won't go away. Just spend half an hour Googling and you'll find the craziest theories. There's such an abundance of information that we're no longer able to distinguish fact from opinion. During the coronavirus pandemic, we saw that this can lead to enormous distrust. Why does it normally take longer to produce vaccines? Is Bill Gates involved? Have these vaccines been sufficiently tested?
What did you learn from that period?
“At a certain point, emotion takes over, and factual information no longer matters. There's no point in saying who the expert is. The only thing that helps is listening, asking questions, and talking face-to-face.”
So the lesson for science communication is: listening is just as important as speaking.
“May I add one more? If you speak, keep it accessible. One of the best exercises is writing an opinion piece. Can you tell a complex and nuanced story in 750 words without using footnotes or jargon?” Is it your job as a science communicator to make that uncertainty a topic of discussion?
“We can always strive to do more and better, but ultimately we will always fall short. Our job is to explain that striving for perfection is doomed to failure. That we must therefore learn to deal with things that don't work out. That we shouldn't be too quick to judge others when something doesn't work out.”
"Op een bepaald moment neemt emotie de overhand, dan doet feitelijke informatie er niet meer toe. Het heeft dan geen zin om te zeggen wie de expert is."
Ignaas Devisch is a professor of medical philosophy and ethics at Ghent University. He makes philosophy accessible to everyone through his columns in De Standaard and is a regular guest on radio and television. He is a sought-after voice in the public debate on healthcare, technology, aging, and human vulnerability.
Read also
Five (realistic) ways to move more in 2026
January often starts with good intentions… but those plans can be quickly abandoned. To exercise more is always high up everyone’s list, but there’s often a gap between wanting to do it and actually doing it. So how do you bridge that gap?
Is a stool transplant a potential treatment for Parkinson’s?
A recent study into Parkinson’s disease has shown that a stool transplant may constitute a new and valuable treatment of the disease. “It offers a potentially safe, effective and cost-efficient way of alleviating the symptoms and improving the quality of life of millions. A 'bacterial pill' might replace the stool transplant in the future. But more research is needed.”
‘Women are not just copies of men with breasts and ovaries.’
Van wetenschappelijk onderzoek tot medische behandelingen, decennialang stond de man centraal in de medische wereld. Betekent dat dan ook dat vrouwen daardoor minder goede zorg krijgen?
Research into rare eye diseases at Ghent University: “It’s fair to say we rank amongst the world’s elite”
Around 8% of the world’s population suffers from a rare disease. In Belgium some 800,000 patients are affected. One of them is eighteen-month-old Oliver, who was born blind. He is closely monitored by professor Bart Leroy, whose team has made remarkable progress in the research into rare eye diseases. Still, there are quite a few stumbling blocks as well.
