
English: 
Do you believe that scientific communication is part of the scientific duty?
Yes, naturally and there are many reasons to say this
most importantly, this is not a trivial activity, contrary to the belief that science communication is not productive
Science is not an aristocratic activity
Nowadays, it is possible to do research thanks to the generosity of the community
and paying back this generosity is fundamental

Spanish: 
Do you believe that scientific communication is part of the scientific duty?
Yes, naturally and there are many reasons to say this
most importantly, this is not a trivial activity, contrary to the belief that science communication is not productive
Science is not an aristocratic activity
Nowadays, it is possible to do research thanks to the generosity of the community
and paying back this generosity is fundamental

Spanish: 
and it is essential to complete the cycle of the scientific process
Nobody would be willing to fund science philanthropically
without knowing what research is all about or how could we benefit from it
so of course, communicating science is crucial
Is there a lack of researchers willing to communicate science?
Or is it rather a lack of public interest in science?
Probably, there is a lack of researchers
trying to stimulate the interest of the general public in science
But that is not my field of expertise and I cannot say it for sure
Anyways, I can say that I refuse to believe that there is a lack of public interest in science
Probably, there is an appreciation deficit

English: 
and it is essential to complete the cycle of the scientific process
Nobody would be willing to fund science philanthropically
without knowing what research is all about or how could we benefit from it
so of course, communicating science is crucial
Is there a lack of researchers willing to communicate science?
Or is it rather a lack of public interest in science?
Probably, there is a lack of researchers
trying to stimulate the interest of the general public in science
But that is not my field of expertise and I cannot say it for sure
Anyways, I can say that I refuse to believe that there is a lack of public interest in science
Probably, there is an appreciation deficit

English: 
And interest and the capacity to appreciate scientific information are not necessarily the same
I believe that any person or the vast majority of people
would enjoy for example, a piece of baroque music
deeply
but to be able to reach this deep enjoyment,
it is necessary to have knowledge that stimulates the capacity of appreciation
or better said, enjoyment depends of this appreciation capability
Maybe, we have a deficit in this regard
perhaps there are difficulties to value or appreciate science
but I don’t think that this is the result of a lack of interest from society. I do not believe that.

Spanish: 
And interest and the capacity to appreciate scientific information are not necessarily the same
I believe that any person or the vast majority of people
would enjoy for example, a piece of baroque music
deeply
but to be able to reach this deep enjoyment,
it is necessary to have knowledge that stimulates the capacity of appreciation
or better said, enjoyment depends of this appreciation capability
Maybe, we have a deficit in this regard
perhaps there are difficulties to value or appreciate science
but I don’t think that this is the result of a lack of interest from society. I do not believe that.

English: 
What kind of audience should be targeted by science communication?
Naturally the children
I have no doubt about it, I support this idea categorically
because they are more flexible
but essentially because the effect of the logical thinking
and the way logical thinking is able to control behavior is more powerful during childhood
I believe that there is a clearer interplay between logical thinking and behavior
There is a beautiful story that everybody can find online
in an interview with Richard Feynman

Spanish: 
What kind of audience should be targeted by science communication?
Naturally the children
I have no doubt about it, I support this idea categorically
because they are more flexible
but essentially because the effect of the logical thinking
and the way logical thinking is able to control behavior is more powerful during childhood
I believe that there is a clearer interplay between logical thinking and behavior
There is a beautiful story that everybody can find online
in an interview with Richard Feynman

English: 
he said in that interview that during his childhood, his father explained to him
that the reason a stone inside a toy car rolls forward when the car is stopped
or rolls backwards when the car started to move
is because of a mysterious force called inertia
and his father told him that nobody knew exactly how that force worked
Feyman said that this mystery was present during his whole life
I believe that stimulating curiosity by describing natural phenomena during childhood
is possibly the best way to bring the scientific endeavour closer to the general public

Spanish: 
he said in that interview that during his childhood, his father explained to him
that the reason a stone inside a toy car rolls forward when the car is stopped
or rolls backwards when the car started to move
is because of a mysterious force called inertia
and his father told him that nobody knew exactly how that force worked
Feyman said that this mystery was present during his whole life
I believe that stimulating curiosity by describing natural phenomena during childhood
is possibly the best way to bring the scientific endeavour closer to the general public

Spanish: 
How can we encourage critical analysis of information by society?
The answer to that question is crucial, even more for people that have the responsibility to make decisions
I believe that the answer to this question is connected to the previous one.
It is crucial to foster appreciation of logical thinking, its relevance and applications.
Science is probably one of the most effective ways to capture and understand the complexity of the natural world
There are other means. For example, art is critical for the same purpose
there is no other way to understand the role of science
besides knowing the particularities of the scientific activity
and the labor of the researchers. It is not complex

English: 
How can we encourage critical analysis of information by society?
The answer to that question is crucial, even more for people that have the responsibility to make decisions
I believe that the answer to this question is connected to the previous one.
It is crucial to foster appreciation of logical thinking, its relevance and applications.
Science is probably one of the most effective ways to capture and understand the complexity of the natural world
There are other means. For example, art is critical for the same purpose
there is no other way to understand the role of science
besides knowing the particularities of the scientific activity
and the labor of the researchers. It is not complex

Spanish: 
In very general terms, it is not a complex activity
We use logic elements to formulate a proposition, a hypothesis
An idea that allows us to make certain predictions
then, in the next step we become the enemies of our own proposal
and we try to destroy it or debate it
How?
Promoting the search for contradictions to it. Let's say:
"By using the stated logical arguments, this proposal suggests that this result would be expected in the given context"
Is this what we actually observe?
If so, our proposal was right and we repeat the procedure to confirm it
If not,  then our proposal was wrong
In fact, most of the important findings occur randomly
because we are looking for defined corroborations of our hypotheses and we find an unexpected result
An unforeseen phenomenon

English: 
In very general terms, it is not a complex activity
We use logic elements to formulate a proposition, a hypothesis
An idea that allows us to make certain predictions
then, in the next step we become the enemies of our own proposal
and we try to destroy it or debate it
How?
Promoting the search for contradictions to it. Let's say:
"By using the stated logical arguments, this proposal suggests that this result would be expected in the given context"
Is this what we actually observe?
If so, our proposal was right and we repeat the procedure to confirm it
If not,  then our proposal was wrong
In fact, most of the important findings occur randomly
because we are looking for defined corroborations of our hypotheses and we find an unexpected result
An unforeseen phenomenon

English: 
then, how could we foster a healthy skepticism?
Helping the non-scientific public to understand the mechanisms that give rise to our interpretations
I don't think there is another way to do it
I can't offer different strategies from my position inside a biology laboratory
but the road to follow is this

Spanish: 
then, how could we foster a healthy skepticism?
Helping the non-scientific public to understand the mechanisms that give rise to our interpretations
I don't think there is another way to do it
I can't offer different strategies from my position inside a biology laboratory
but the road to follow is this
