In an era where news crowds the airwaves, interpretations conflict, and rumors race against facts, trust becomes one of the most precious and rare social resources. Because people seek not just information but a reliable source, science—when presented with honesty and responsibility—transforms into a broad gateway connecting society with its institutions, rooting public decisions in knowledge rather than impressions.
Today, people do not demand ready-made decisions, nor are they satisfied with grand slogans. Instead, they want to understand: Why was this decision made? What are the scientific foundations behind it? And who are the experts behind its formulation? When citizens feel that health measures, economic policies, or environmental recommendations are built on solid research and supported by independent specialists, their stance changes radically. They may object or debate, and may not agree with every detail, but they will not view decisions as whims or improvised reactions. Instead, they will see them as calculated steps aimed at improving their lives, however open to criticism or improvement they may be.
However, scientific knowledge alone is insufficient; true value emerges when we succeed in simplifying it without distortion, explaining it without affectation, and conveying it to people in their own language, not the language of laboratories and esoteric terminology. Here, science intersects with the art of communication, and scientific institutions must learn how to explain, not just how to analyze or deduce.
This is why Scientific Advisory Councils play the role of “translator” between the researcher’s world, filled with minute details, and the social reality that requires clear, direct messages. They engage with statistical models, graphs, and complex forecasts, but rephrase the outputs to enable society to understand them and make informed decisions. This intermediary role is not a simple task; it is a solid foundation for the ecosystem of public trust.
For this process to succeed, scientific institutions need to commit to three fundamental pillars:
-
First: Transparency. Credibility is not built only on showing what we know, but also on acknowledging what we do not know. True science does not claim perfection; it courageously reveals its limits.
-
Second: Independence. Scientific opinion loses its value when mixed with political pressure or commercial interests. Maintaining a clear distance between scientific research and centers of influence is a necessity to protect knowledge from distortion.
-
Third: Continuity. Science must not appear merely as a “firefighter” during crises and then vanish. It should be present in public discourse, participating in planning, evaluating policies, and contributing to shaping the future before crises occur, not just in their aftermath.
When people realize that scientific institutions are not merely a facade or decoration summoned when needed, but a true partner in decision-making, trust begins to grow. This trust not only fortifies decisions but also protects society itself from division, prevents the spread of misleading rhetoric, and gives citizens a sense that they are part of the future-making process, not just spectators.
Science is not merely tables and equations, nor silent numbers on paper; it is an ethical contract between society and the truth. The stronger and clearer this contract is, the more capable societies become in facing crises, the more resilient in adapting to major shifts, and the more ready to accept change when it becomes necessary—with the least possible resistance and the highest level of awareness and responsibility.
