Science? A Dimension of Citizenship

The thesis is clear and hardly comforting: simply "communicating science better" is no longer enough. The problem runs deeper. In contemporary societies, science has become a structural component of public decisions, but the cultural tools for understanding scientific options remain fragile, unequal and often inadequate. The result is a short circuit: on the one hand, the risk of technocracies imposing decisions in the name of evidence; on the other, a growing popular distrust that fuels polarization and rejection.

This is the starting point for Scienza è Cultura (Egea), a dialogue between Paola Dubini, Professor of Management at Bocconi University, and Fiorenzo Galli, Director General of the Leonardo da Vinci National Museum of Science and Technology. Two different perspectives — academic and museal — converging on a single conclusion: science cannot remain the realm of experts. It is a question of active citizenship.

"Science doesn't offer definitive certainties, but verifiable tools for navigating uncertainty," observes Dubini. "The problem is that scientific tools aren't yet shared social heritage." Indeed, the issue isn't how much we know, but how — and if — we're able to understand: "The gap between science and society isn't natural: it's constructed," adds Galli. "And it can only be narrowed by making science part of civic culture."

What does scientific citizenship really mean, and why is science no longer a topic for insiders today?

Paola Dubini. It means recognizing that science isn't something we can observe from the outside. The decisions that matter — from health to energy, from technology to the environment — are increasingly based on complex scientific knowledge. If you don't have the tools to embrace this complexity, you effectively give up participating. Scientific citizenship is the ability to understand, evaluate and use this knowledge in collective decision-making processes.

Fiorenzo Galli. It's not about turning everyone into a scientist, but about empowering people to exercise judgment on collective decisions. The problem is that this kind of expertise is currently undistributed. And when it's lacking, two opposing reactions arise: either total delegation to experts or wholesale rejection of science. Neither is compatible with a mature democratic society.

Isn't increasing the amount of scientific information available enough?

Dubini. Greater scientific literacy is certainly necessary, but it's only the first step. Science doesn't produce definitive truths, but always provisional results, based on the knowledge available at a given time. If this isn't properly understood, any shift in scientific consensus can be perceived as inconsistency or manipulation. Informing isn't enough: we need to build the capacity for interpretation.

Galli. We saw this clearly during the pandemic. Citizens demanded certainty, but science could only offer progressively more solid hypotheses. This misalignment generated mistrust. And when communication simplifies or hides uncertainty, the result is even worse.

How significant is the gap between the scientific community and society today?

Galli. Very. Scientific progress follows imperfect but relatively transparent processes within scientific communities, in peer-to-peer debates, but this remains highly unclear to the outside world. For those outside the scientific community, language ​​and rules remain opaque. This fuels the perception of a closed, distant community.

Dubini. And this distance is grafted onto strong information asymmetries. Citizens must form opinions on complex issues without always having the tools to do so. Misinformation, simplification and polarized narratives creep into this gap.

In your book, you emphasize that science is a human activity. Why is this such an important point?

Dubini. Because it helps avoid two polar errors: considering it infallible or considering it manipulated. Science is made of trial, error and verification. It progresses in small steps and admits its own fallibility. It is precisely this structure that makes it reliable in the long term.

Galli. But this nature is difficult to accept outside scientific communities. Uncertainty is often interpreted as a weakness, while it is actually a structural component of the scientific method. If this isn't understood, the relationship with science remains fragile.

Today, research is increasingly intertwined with economic and political interests. What impact does this have on scientific citizenship?

Galli. A huge impact. Research is no longer conducted only in universities, but also in companies, often with much greater resources. This isn't a problem in itself, but it changes the balance: priorities can be driven by economic logic rather than collective needs.

Dubini. And this makes citizens' ability to orient themselves even more important. If the trajectories of science are influenced by various actors — public and private — greater awareness is needed for society to discuss and evaluate these interests.

What role should the state have in this scenario?

Dubini. A balancing role. The state is provider, regulator and mediator. It must ensure that research responds to public, and not just private, interests, and must create the conditions for informed debate.

Galli. But it must also accept a difficult challenge: communicating uncertainty. Politics tends to offer clear-cut answers, science does not. Integrating these two logics is complex, but inevitable.

What, then, is the specific contribution of scientific citizenship to democracy?

Dubini. It enables a more solid debate. It does not eliminate conflict, but shifts it to shared informational bases. It allows us to discuss collective choices without reducing them to ideological or emotional conflicts.

Galli. Without this expertise, the risk is twofold: either science is used as a technocratic tool, or it is rejected as an imposition. In both cases, the quality of public decisions is diminished.

Universities, schools, museums: who should build this scientific citizenship?

Galli. Everyone, but cultural institutions have a crucial role. Science museums, for example, can be places of mediation, not just dissemination: spaces where experimentation, discussion and familiarity with complexity are built.

Dubini. It requires ongoing work, throughout one’s lifetime. Scientific citizenship is not a skill acquired once and for all. It's a process.

In short: what is the risk if we don't address this issue?

Dubini. That science has remained outside the public sphere and is being used without being understood, fueling deep inequalities.

Galli. And that democracy is being weakened. Because today, without a minimum of scientific citizenship, we are truly unable to participate in the decisions that matter.