When astronaut Sara García Alonso looks at the sky, she says she sees “questions that seek answers to open new questions.” “It makes me feel small, because of the immensity, but at the same time protected and safe,” she said yesterday in Barcelona during her speech at the conference. Catalonia looks at the cellorganized by the Government in Barcelona to promote the scientific strategy on the total eclipse that will be seen next summer in Spain.
García Alonso (León, 36 years old) is a molecular biologist at the National Center for Cancer Research, but three years ago her life took a turning point when she was selected by the European Space Agency to be part of the reserve corps of the new team of astronauts: another Leonean, Pablo Álvarez, joined the starting group. Since then, the researcher has combined her scientific work in the search for drugs against lung and pancreatic cancer with training periods within the European agency’s astronaut training program.
And also save time for diffusion. Through his social networks – he has 260,000 followers on Instagram –, at conferences, talks and wherever he is required. In an interview with EL PAÍS shortly before the start of the scientific day, García Alonso claims the urgency of spreading science, of leaving the laboratory and taking to the streets to tell what is being done.
Regarding the melon of misinformation and the way in which pseudoscientific theories are permeating society, the scientist proposes an exercise in empathy. Dance, instead of boxing, with people who have these opinions. And take advantage of opportunities, such as the media attention on the new Spanish astronauts or the phenomenon of the 2026 eclipses, to revitalize the scientific message. “If the opportunity presents itself to instill in the new generations that desire and interest in science, it is acceptable and legitimate to take advantage of it. It was no one’s decision that there would be a total eclipse in 2026, but taking those pieces together with everything that the space sector is evolving, it is a good opportunity to revive a little bit of that fascination with space that was felt most in the seventies, with the whole Apollo program, and take advantage of it to spread the word and be interested in people. science”, we defend.
Ask. Is it necessary to take science out of the laboratory?
Answer. Decidedly. It’s something that scientists themselves may have made a mistake in: if we are unable to communicate what we do and why we do it, it can be understood that society sees it as something very distant from them. We must make the effort to translate, to use non-technical language and to make people see that everything we have today is based on research and development and the application of innovation.
Q. Do scientists find it difficult to get out?
R. Yes, it costs. Because research work is a very professional job that requires many hours. We scientists live a bit isolated in that laboratory bubble and when it comes to making that translation we are so meticulous that we are a bit afraid of losing rigor by translating into other types of words.
Q. Are these bad times for science?
R. I think we have to continue to work hard to promote this type of career, precisely because of the social landscape we are experiencing with social networks and the excess of information, which makes it difficult to perceive what is true and what is false. Hoaxes and misinformation coexist with real data and I think people are pretty lost as to what’s true and what’s not. And many times we choose simple explanations that we can understand or those that challenge us on an emotional level rather than the complex ones that science can offer, which generates a rejection of science.
It seemed like a campaign had been opened where everyone supported science, especially in cases like the pandemic. And now I feel that there is pushback again, and that opinions and facts are too often confused. We can’t let this happen. An informed society with truthful news is a freer society and confusion is being generated at the moment.
Q. Regarding disinformation, the Center for Opinion Studies of Catalonia recently conducted a survey on disinformation and post-truth: 25% of people believe that Sars-cov-2 was created in the laboratory as a biological weapon, one in five people believes that vaccines do more harm than good and that pharmaceutical companies hide it; 42% of the population believes that the authorities exaggerate the dangers of some diseases for economic interests. Is the battle for truth lost?
R. It doesn’t sound very hopeful when you give this data (laughs). As a scientist, I get quite frustrated when opinions that science has discredited for so long come back on the table. I thought they were chapters that we had already covered and I see that we need to dust off those books and justify again things that have already been more than proven. It frustrates me, but I’ve thought about it a lot and vilifying people who think and express their opinions this way is pointless because what you’ll get is they’ll hold on to their opinions more.
Maybe we need to listen, see where this belief comes from, why we hold on to those kinds of opinions so much and, together, we try to discuss, but not through confrontation. Instead of starting a boxing match, let’s dance, let’s understand each other, let both people flow. And let’s see how I can expose you to other forms of reality that you hadn’t noticed, or how I can make you see that we don’t have absolute knowledge, that there are many nuances and many variables that escape us and, therefore, we have to be very cautious, very cautious when it comes to making absolute truths. I will always support the scientific method, because it is based on a method, there are rules of the game, it is falsifiable, and this is something that not all opinions and post-truths can say.
Q. To do this takes time, more than those who simply say “I think”. In a time when attention is so atomized, how do you hold it so you can be heard?
R. You have to do an empathy exercise, try to understand your interlocutor and the language he uses. Adapt to this and try to create a common framework of game rules to be able to discuss on the same terms. We must first reach a consensus on how we can argue or how we can at least generate a sense of doubt. But it’s a tough battle and requires patience and not everyone is willing. It’s a difficult dance.
Q. Now they are appearing influencers without scientific training who launch pseudoscientific ideas. Footballers and actresses who spread hoaxes, like planes fumigating us, for example. How do you take those talks?
R. It seems very irresponsible to me that people whose voice is heard, who influence and who can be a mirror in which many people look at themselves, so lightly do this exercise of expressing their opinions without relying on data. It’s okay to question things, I don’t mean to criticize it, but you need to set some boundaries. The reality we know is based on years and years of study, of contribution to knowledge. We cannot throw away millennia of knowledge.
“All the investment that is being made in space is precisely to solve the problems we have on Earth.”
Q. Could the Trump administration’s twists on NASA affect progress in space exploration?
R. If science budgets were cut, many scientific projects that aim to advance science would suffer. We find ourselves in a time of great uncertainty. Space exploration relies on interagency collaboration, so obviously it will have an impact, including in terms of robotic missions and manned flights. We need to see to what extent Europe has autonomy, resilience and capacity to move forward and continue to promote scientific projects.
Q. Someone might think, with what falls down here, to think about what happens up there. What would I tell him?
R. Virtually all the investment made in space is precisely to solve the problems we have here on Earth. All satellites related to Earth observation, for example, serve safety issues, not only to monitor the health of our planet and fight the climate crisis, but also at the level of air, maritime and land traffic, prevention of natural disasters… These are the basics. Then, if I bring it to biomedical research, being able to do research in microgravity conditions that cannot be reproduced on Earth opens up infinite possibilities: for example, an astronaut on a six-month mission has bone degeneration 10 times greater than the worst case that occurs on Earth, which would be a menopausal woman or an elderly person; Therefore, by studying this osteoporosis, new drugs can be developed.
