Bridging information and education: what Media Bayern and the Munich Science Communication Lab teach us

Over the past weeks, I had the opportunity to become familiar with two very different organisations: the Munich Science Communication Lab (MSCL) and Media Bayern. Both are dedicated to strengthening public knowledge, but in fundamentally different ways: one through science education, the other through media literacy.

The MSCL was particularly interesting to me because it challenges the cliché of science communication as merely distributing press releases or publishing infographics on social media. Instead, they focus on carefully designed formats, such as exhibitions, workshops, and school projects, which are systematically evaluated. Their central topic, planetary health, is highly relevant: it connects climate change, biodiversity loss, and human health in a way that feels both urgent and approachable.

From what I observed and researched, the MSCL plays a bridging role between science and the general public. In Germany, where science communication has traditionally been somewhat formal or even elitist, this approach appears innovative. The Lab also contributes to education by targeting schoolchildren and teachers with materials and exhibitions that help integrate current research into classrooms.

However, this focus on measurable “impact” raises some critical questions. The idea that one can reliably demonstrate whether a workshop changes attitudes or behaviours over the long term seems rather optimistic. It can also create pressure to justify funding through positive results, even when social change is often slow and difficult to quantify. Another aspect that deserves critical reflection is the strong dependence on external foundations. While private funding can facilitate experimentation, it can also subtly influence priorities and restrict autonomy.

By contrast, Media Bayern approaches public empowerment from the perspective of media education. Their work primarily concerns media literacy: helping people of all ages to navigate an increasingly complex information environment. Especially in view of the rise of disinformation, conspiracy narratives, and declining trust in journalism, this is essential for a functioning democracy.

Yet I noticed that Media Bayern’s methods can at times seem somewhat schematic. Critical thinking involves more than applying criteria to headlines; it also requires deeper reflection on why disinformation spreads and how one’s own cognitive biases operate. There is a risk that “media literacy” becomes merely a set of techniques to be memorised instead of fostering a genuine culture of inquiry.

Despite their differences, I was struck by one similarity: both organisations are engaged in building resilience, whether against misleading health claims or against propaganda. They complement each other in important ways: the MSCL contributes scientific expertise and a culture of evaluation, while Media Bayern focuses on everyday information competencies.

For me personally, this experience highlighted how urgently Germany needs such initiatives. While neither approach is without limitations, both fill critical gaps in education and public discourse. What should be emphasised positively is their willingness to innovate and their clear commitment to serving the public interest. At the same time, both organisations will need to continue questioning their own assumptions, particularly when it comes to demonstrating impact or avoiding overly mechanistic models of learning.

In times of increasing polarisation and declining trust, their work seems more relevant than ever.