5070788776_3f3ac417ed_oKnowledge, as a volatile, intangible and global element, does not understand borders. In the business generated around it, there are a multitude of agents of different natures and origins, a global board in which trends are outlined, but not norms and through which to move, it is necessary to do so decisively and without fear of playing. I understand communication as a halo that surrounds that knowledge that allows it to pass from hand to hand and that ensures its repercussion and influence.

From science we work piecemeal and with little rest, to find solutions to an endless number of mysteries and problems that we are generating on the planet. It is not magic, nor faith, nor story, it is science; there are thousands of people and millions of hours. They are armies in white coats, equations, formulas, solutions… that require well-deserved attention.

All these efforts, carried out by thousands of strangers, unknowingly, shed light every day, every morning on our desks. In the form of news, scientific publications or, rarely in the general press, we read with relief their findings, results, and solutions proposed in order to improve our development. Many innovations, patents and improvements will never see the light of day, or at least not the light they should. The lack of projection and dissemination makes science broadcast through underground channels or by independent production companies that do not reach the general public. In this way, the door is left open to denial and enlightened pessimism that abounds among our leaders, generalist media… and has plunged half the population into an apocalyptic discourse that I refuse to listen to. I think that an improvement in the communication of science could illuminate and give a radical turn to the moments well illustrated by that Ikea advertising campaign that shouted at us TODOVAMAL.

When you see that the technologies exist, that the problems have solutions, simply that they are not being applied, do you wonder (or get angry) why science, even if it is well cooked, does not reach the plate? Thinking of reasons and leaving behind those related to the neglect that coexists among the political class, you see that since unsuspected times science and politics do not understand each other and, as in an ill-matched divorce, communication is minimal.

The main problem of understanding that exists between the two is multi-channel and directional. Science is complex by nature, its times are different, it is not intelligible to passers-by and therefore, it is exclusive… the investigations are uncertain, many are long-term, the results are complex, the technical language and sometimes it is difficult to see its applicability. If we stop to examine the policy, we see that it is short-sighted, it needs elements that are applicable and executable at the moment, provide irrefutable data, take tangible, understandable and populist measures.

With these two opposite poles committed to mutual understanding, we are presented with a new dimension of communication that is yet to be articulated and that requires elements not used until now, beginning with a large dose of will. But also, of the participation in the process of new mediation figures.

We need to build a neutral space of coexistence and understanding. It is not about politicizing science, nor about scientists running our cities. But it does require that both work together and seek synergies to govern at the forefront and investigate efficiently.

The process is complex, but there is no time to lose, there are many countries that have already established the bridges and the result of this is their figures and their good progress. The methodology and instruments have to be custom designed, but they will have a lot to do with translation -from one language to another-, techniques for managing uncertainty, promoting dialogue and above all joint work. At this point we would introduce a third point, which would involve involving society in the processes, after training, but this is another chapter.