Who talk about science?

Spreading of sciences still has great limits in our society. Conquering the stage on the occasion of discoveries which generate wait for the resolution of problems that trouble mankind, or, otherwise, on the occasion of dramatic and catastrophic events. Issues are often explained roughly and generally without any consideration of the general context, offering in this way an incomplete view of scientific problems, and what is more depreciable, aimed just to press human sensibility. 25 years are elapsed from the alarm launched by Royal Society with Bodmer report on Public Understanding of Science (1985) which warned against potential deterioration in relations between science and public opinion. Then the most logical solution seemed to be teaching scientists to “speak” to the public in an understandable way, in order that they could gain more and more accurate scientific knowledge. Someone tried to run for cover with the creation of CoPUS (Committee for the Public Understanding of Science) which carried out a program of public understanding of science but, back in the '90s, was in crisis. A crisis increasingly evident, so much so that in 2000 the third report of the House of Lords entitled "Science and Technology", recognized the failure of the project because, not only the scientific literacy was not increased but the suspicion grew even aversion towards scientific research. Unfortunately, having pressed scientists to learn how to communicate with public has not delivered desired results. Science is not yet considered as a major factor in promoting national welfares. Most people, in fact, continues to feel scientific disciplines as not properly "cultural" and to be deaf to the right assertion that "no public communication of science means a not real democratic society of knowledge" (Greco e Pitrelli , 2009). Earth Sciences divulgation, in this respect, is certainly a particularly eloquent case. Because in most cases it deals with catastrophic natural events inevitably relating this kind of collective misfortune. Moreover not always the catastrophic event is adequately documented and proposed in the natural and complex evolution and geodynamics of the Earth. Earth sciences need a much greater disclosure. In a nutshell, the communication on the issues concerning the earth sciences should be reserved to professionals who care not only to provide a global vision but also to detect and stress existing connections. It is essential therefore to train and educate rigorously scientific communicators, according to precise and shared criteria, to achieve the goal to establish an appropriate role for scientific cultural mediators (Tran & King, 2007; Tran, 2008; Rodari e Merzagora, 2009). On the other hand what does it mean to know or understand science? Maybe to know a lot of scientific facts? Many theories? Its methods? We understand that it is not possible to transform common people in small chemists, physicists or biologists. Neither one can reduce science to a mere technical knowledge or, on the other hand, to empty entertainment, renouncing its primary educational role (Israel, 2008). But we can, at least, try to get the public more aware of the influence that science exerts on society.