Executive Summary

Switzerland held its first Swiss Research and Innovation Summit (SRIS'26) – a major event with 350 experts from science, politics, business, and civil society. The summit in Bern aimed to intensify dialogue between scientific expertise and society. Core message: Scientific findings only have an impact when they are understood and actively communicated. The event was organized by the State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SBFI) and the Swiss Academies of Sciences.

People

Topics

  • Science communication and public trust
  • Interface between science, politics, and society
  • Switzerland's research and innovation landscape
  • Addressing societal challenges

Clarus Lead

Switzerland is establishing its first dialogue format between science and society at the national level. SRIS'26 addresses a strategic gap: while other countries have long established such summits, Switzerland lacked a comparable platform. Relevance for decision-makers: In times of multiple crises (technological change, competitiveness, societal transformations), the transfer of scientific findings to politics and the public becomes a critical success factor. The event signals that trust in science does not arise automatically but must be cultivated through transparent communication and active dialogue.

Detailed Summary

SRIS'26 brought together approximately 350 leading representatives from research, innovation, administration, politics, business, and civil society. The event was jointly organized by the SBFI and the Swiss Academies of Sciences (a+), which serve as a bridge organization between actors.

Federal President Guy Parmelin emphasized in his opening address the need to overcome institutional and sectoral boundaries. Central challenges – technological change, securing competitiveness, and managing societal transformations – require coordinated efforts across all sectors. State Secretary Martina Hirayama underscored the core concern: scientific findings only have an impact when understood by the public. Dialogue is therefore not optional but an integral part of the value chain for research and innovation.

Yves Flückiger, President of the Academies, advocated for sustainable bridges between research and society. The complexity of scientific findings can lead to misunderstandings or skepticism – only through transparent communication and active dialogue can trust be sustainably strengthened. The event served to critically question and readjust the roles, frameworks, and formats of dialogue.

Key Messages

  • First national platform: Switzerland is establishing a dialogue format that has long been tradition in other countries – a strategic step to strengthen the research location.

  • Dialogue as value creation: Scientific findings are only socially effective when they are understood and actively communicated – not as a downstream process, but as an integral component.

  • Building trust through transparency: Researchers must communicate their work in an understandable manner and proactively engage in dialogue with society and politics to avoid skepticism.

  • Systemic challenges require cooperation: Technological change, competitiveness, and societal transformations can only be addressed through collaboration across institutional boundaries.

Critical Questions

  1. Evidence/Data Quality: What metrics will be used to measure the success of SRIS'26? Are there baseline data on current trust in science against which progress can be measured?

  2. Conflicts of Interest: To what extent could conflicts of interest arise when science is simultaneously an advisor and recipient of political funding? How is independence ensured?

  3. Causality/Alternatives: Is insufficient dialogue the core problem, or are there structural factors (funding, research priorities)? What alternative interventions were considered?

  4. Feasibility/Risks: How will the 350 participants bring concrete measures back to their institutions? Is there a risk that the summit remains a one-time event without follow-up processes?

  5. Representativeness: Are all relevant stakeholders (e.g., critics of research priorities, marginalized communities) represented in the dialogue, or do established actors dominate?

  6. Transparency Requirements: What standards for scientific communication will be defined? How will quality be weighed against simplification?

Sources

Primary Source: Press Release: Understanding and dialogue between science, politics, and society must be further strengthened – https://www.news.admin.ch/de/newnsb/XCn8fNTujZy-ZCa5c4U4x (March 17, 2026)

Verification Status: ✓ March 17, 2026

This text was created with the support of an AI model. Editorial responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-check: March 17, 2026