We have a poor scientific

communication. And it's not the

scientists' fault
The media do not make them write but the real point is that adequate
levels of functional literacy are needed to understand certain information
or follow certain reasoning
by Gilberto Corbellini
5 December 2017 at 06:00

An image of the Icarus experiment in the Gran Sasso laboratories (Photo LaPresse)

A cliché that is heard when manipulations of scientific topics occur is: "It is
the fault of the scientists, who make no effort to make things understand; they
are shut up in their ivory towers and do not care to communicate with
ordinary people ". Again: "Scientists must write in the newspapers and go on
television to inform and refute those who spread falsehoods; and they must
do it in an understandable way to have the trust ".
My first answer to these topics is usually: try you, being perhaps among the
top experts, professors or researchers (very little) salaried by the state or who
have received millions of euro of public money, who study the topic on
which you do disinformation, to write a letter to a newspaper editor to report
the false information. Try to negotiate with a talk-show host how to discuss
science on television. Well, at that point you would understand why scientists
"do not communicate". The editor of the newspaper does not even deign to
answer. At best he tells you: send us a letter that we put in the appropriate
column. While the lie of the "Hyenas" had earned a full page. The same does
any politician, with whom we may complain, unless he sees a way to exploit
the report to go him on television or in the newspapers. The television host,
apart from one (who is not Mentana), will say that the public should not be
bored otherwise it changes the channel - when it's ok - and that you have to
compare with opinions different from yours, otherwise appear arrogant. But
how, I that maybe study a life immunology and vaccines, paid by the state to
teach what I know, I would have on the subject of "opinions", like any fanatic
anti-vaccine graduate? My skills and knowledge, validated by decades of
funded and published research, would be "opinions"? Unbelievable.

When the Stamina case occurred, some scientists, like Elena Cattaneo and
Michele De Luca, refused to confront Vannoni and Andolina. Had they done
so, they would have credited the two charlatans as their scientific
peers. Because? Everyone, even those who study at Google University, know
how to close the Logic-philosophicus Tractatus of Wittgestein: "About what
you can not talk about, you must be silent". With homeopaths, paranoid of
the relationships between autism and vaccines, auctioneers of miracle stem
cells, etc.one can not speak within concepts, theories and methods of
scientific medicine. So it would be advisable to keep quiet, that is, not take
their arguments into consideration, otherwise it is as if they could talk about
it.Citizens who do not know the subject or trust what the scientists say they
pay their salary, even if they do not understand them, or study. A frustrating
situation that leads many, who are in a hurry and no desire to question their
convictions, to radicalize themselves against science.

There is no doubt that it is very useful to explain why homeopathy has no

scientific basis, but not discussing it as a doctor or academic in a public space
with a homeopath, and taking into account that the message to be given is
that homeopathy is not scientific. because it is not refutable. Not because it
does not work. Physicians should stop experimenting to try to understand
whether homeopathic treatments are effective or not: by definition
homeopathy escapes experimental control. It is a question of faith. The
widespread recourse to homeopathy, despite having no scientific basis, is a
socio-cultural phenomenon that can study and scientifically explain
psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists, sociologists, epistemologists and
medical historians. Not the clinical methodologists.

As a consequence of the fact that nobody row them, the scientists are among
them and only someone more sociable, narcissistic or a little 'excited to get
stirred to go to the newspapers or maybe ends up playing the jester in some
television broadcast. Without prejudice to Piero Angela, I do not know
anyone who in Italy appropriately deals with science on television. While the
interviewing researchers usually accept intimidation or anxious to be known
in contexts aimed at trivializing or spectacularizing the topics. Scientists who
have a sense of dignity, however, become easily impatient towards journalists
who do not listen to them, manipulate them, treat them haughtily, make them
moral, etc.
It is also said that scientists do not make enough disclosure. Let's go back to
an aspect already seen: but if they do not make them write in the newspapers
or if they may write in the newspapers not the expert in question, but one a
little 'famous that they talk about everything. Which does not happen in the
Anglo-Saxon media.Moreover, in Italy there is very little reading, many less
essays and a handful of scientific books. Publishers are not charitable
associations and they make books that citizens expect, that is, that they then
buy. If these do not buy scientific essays why should they publish them?

Someone will say that no one reads them because they do not make
themselves understood. Calm a moment. I generally distrust when scientists
make themselves understood too much. But this is a different problem. Of
course if a scientist has studied twenty years and written for specialized
magazines thousands of pages of calculations and figures for the purpose of
circumscribing complicated concepts, hypotheses and experiments to explain
a complex phenomenon, it is difficult to be exhaustive and brilliant in 5-6
thousand characters (spaces included). Apart from that he also usually
unlearned to write in Italian. But the real point is that adequate levels of
functional literacy are needed to understand certain information or follow
certain reasoning. While 30% of Italian citizens are functionally illiterate,
compared to 12% in Finland or the Czech Republic - and if another 50% are
likely to remain below the cognitive performance required to understand the
complicated dynamics of knowledge economies - perhaps this will play a role
in the fact that people can not understand certain topics. Beyond the efforts
that scientists can make. The gurus who go the most, who do not say
anything when they write, instead they understand them all.