How it was, back in the day
Interviews with two personalities whose connection with Horizons goes back decades: the first editor-in-chief after it was reconceived as a proper science magazine, and a scientist who’s been a faithful reader all these years.
“It was frustrating for us, as journalists, not to wield the tool of Horizons ourselves”
Veronica Preti, is Horizons a cherished memory for you?
Of course. And when I think about it again, I realise that the story of Horizons is also the story of communication at the SNSF – and, more broadly within science – at a time when it was not easy.
Why is that?
Because, back then, bringing science to the masses was seen as losing scientific rigour, and therefore considered research time lost. Communication happened among peers: in articles and at conferences. Then, with Horizons, a journal belonging to their main ‘sponsor’, they felt somewhat obliged to open up their lab doors to us.
In 1995 the SNSF hired journalists.
Prior to that, the service was only two people, one of whom was a secretary. The role was above all dealing with questions from journalists. The SNSF wanted to professionalise the press service.
Is this how Horizons became journalism?
Horizons already existed, but it was outsourced to an agency in Geneva, CEDOS. I worked with them briefly. But it was frustrating – for me and the other two journalists involved, including Christoph Dieffenbacher, who still writes for Horizons – to not really wield the tool ourselves. So we took our chances. And our managers supported us. The director of the SNSF at the time was Hans-Peter Hertig, and he was a little afraid it would fail. But he never told us that it was madness.
How difficult was the actual launch?
We learned a lot. Being a journalist means knowing how to write articles and not knowing how to run a newspaper. We found a graphic designer in Zurich who helped us a lot, especially in creating sections, organising pages, thinking about content. And we had to create a bilingual editorial with freelance journalists and photographers, translate, print and distribute it.
How did you come up with topics?
We were allowed to take part in the meetings of the scientific divisions of the SNSF Research Council while they were evaluating submitted projects. It was a real revolution. We’d never had access to those sessions before. It was not always easy, because scientists sometimes looked at us a little curiously.
And how did you find subscribers?
There was no SNSF website until 1997. Before then, we’d go to the Geneva Book Fair every year. We’d present a science project in a simple way and make it fun wherever possible. For example, we created a quiz with archaeological objects. The project’s team of researchers and our colleagues from the SNSF Secretariat all helped to run the stand. Oh, how we laughed! The team, the scientists, the members of the public… That boosted the number of Horizons subscriptions.
What stands out to you in Horizons today?
The layout of topics seems much more socially oriented today. Our articles were focused more on fundamental research, and that was difficult to explain to the public. I also see today that scientists have become subjects themselves in articles: both in portraits and reports. At the time, the researcher was invisible next to the research.
“Horizons is like a mental fitness regime”
Kurt Reimann, when did you first hold a copy of Horizons in your hands?
At the ETH, I always used to look through all the post in the Rector’s Office. That was where I first came across Horizons. It seemed interesting, so I started reading it. It was a big help in my professional life as it meant I could keep up to date across all the different fields of knowledge. After retiring, I took out a subscription so I could keep reading it.
In 1998, you sent the editors a critical letter about its new design.
Back then, I thought Horizons was something special, and I felt that its redesign had made it seem run-of-the-mill. Looking back, the change wouldn’t bother me so much any more. It’s obvious that a print publication has to undergo a revamp every now and then.
Is it important to you that Horizons still appears in a print edition?
Yes. For me, reading a magazine on the Internet has something non-committal about it. You scroll through it and maybe something will catch your attention. But then you move on quickly anyway. It’s different with a magazine that’s made of ink on paper.
Do you think the magazine’s content is on the right level?
It’s a bit demanding – though that’s also a good thing. Especially for someone who’s getting older and wants to keep their mind sharp. Ultimately, Horizons serves as a kind of mental fitness regime.
What does Horizons offer that you don’t find elsewhere?
It’s the way it offers an overall picture. I also read magazines issued by universities and research institutes. They’re really interesting too, but they focus on themselves and tend to be more of a PR publication. Horizons, in contrast, maintains a certain sober-mindedness that I think is a good thing.
If Horizons didn’t exist any more, what would you read in its place?
It’s simply irreplaceable. There’d be a knowledge gap for me. I could maybe compensate by subscribing to science journals from universities in French-speaking Switzerland, but at some point it would just get too much, wouldn’t it. Also, the selection offered by Horizons is valuable to me.
