Communication and its economic, technological, cultural and ethical repercussions for society are the themes of the third edition of the seminar. The objective is to assess the impact of both traditional and non-traditional means of communication on a constantly changing society: the effects of new technology on social and economic organisation; its influence on the relationship between the public and "insiders", ranging from public administrators to scientists; the changes induced by the "virtual" in systems based on the physical movement of people and messages; and the transformation of an ever more global and "on-line" system of markets.
The development of the information society raises new questions about the relationship between culture and information, between the simple dissemination of data and the creation of an aware and critical approach to information. How can we best exploit new technology in educational systems that seek to reach the greatest number of users of every age group and background? What are the possible risks of the uncontrolled circulation of an increasing quantity of information?
The speed with which data and news are generated and the slower rhythms of learning and developing a systematic body of knowledge prompt a further question: how can we ensure that the standardisation of form and content does not erase the identity of cultures and languages? Or that the progressive specialisation of disciplines and languages does not undermine communication between experts from different fields?
Responses and new questions can emerge from the exchange of views between scientists, economists, intellectuals and politicians. Dialogue between the disciplines is the most fruitful approach to one of the key problems we face at the end of the millennium: how to guarantee access to the information necessary for the public to participate in an informed manner in decisions involving society as a whole.
Communicating Across the Cultural Divide
Wednesday 6 December 1995
The great civilisations of the past developed the sciences along with the arts and used both to improve material well-being and happiness. Educated people made little distinction between the cultures and expected to know something of each. In the nineteenth century the education system became more specialised and vocational until, today, we are developing two groups of semi-educated people, each unable to communicate with the other.

Does it really matter if most people are illiterate, or innumerate, or unartistic, or understand little about the natural world that they inhabit? The Philistines were happy, weren't they? Or should we try, through broader education and interdisciplinary communication, to understand better the endowment of knowledge which is there to be shared by all people?

There are at least three reasons why general understanding of science is important. First, it is part of our culture, like the arts and the classics and, like them, it enriches the life of the individual. Second, more working occupations of all kinds need some understanding of science if they are to be properly performed. Third, and perhaps the most urgent at the present time, the public are increasingly demanding some part in decision-making about the practice and applications of science, decisions about the future of nuclear power, or the use of pesticides, or research involving animal experiments. Scientific research is increasingly expensive and most of it is financed by the taxpayer, who has a right to know how his investment is getting along. But he cannot properly exercise his vote in these matters if he is ignorant of the science on which his decisions have to be based.

The resulting essay has been translated into Italian and published in the book Dall'informazione alla cultura. Dieci Nobel per il futuro. (Marsilio, Venezia 1996).