Dear Mrs. Starcic,

Your question aims to define what to do science for.

Is it simply an academic activity or should it have a social interest?

I believe that, at least the history, the discipline that concerns me, has two moments: the first, is the "hard" communication, destined to the colleagues; they must know it through specialized publications or communications in the congresses, and submit it to criticism according to the parameters established for science; but once passed this test, I believe that the disclosure of the results is imposed, written in a "soft" language within reach of anyone.

This, of course, should not diminish the seriousness and rigour of research, but simply socialize it as much as possible among the people.

If history has a social function (as I believe) and we are researchers paid by the State, I believe that it is an unavoidable duty to give back to society a little of what we do, for its illustration and also so that they have control over the spending of public money.

Best regards

Dear Gustavo,

I agree with you and am wondering what obstacles historians face when communicating and disseminating results to the public?

This question has several factors to take into account which I will comment. First; It has deep ethical foundations, scientists must work for humanity, share the results of our research beyond the economic interests that support them. This may seem a contradiction, but it is not, I know that science and technology have a social character, that the results of research respond to social, economic, political, cultural, etc., but the scientist has an individual responsibility with what he does, a commitment with his scientific community, with the country and region where he lives and with humanity. The scientist has to defend that right. A second moment; that does not contradict the previous one is to strengthen the protection mechanisms of intellectual property that protects their rights and allows them to obtain benefits from their research, including those that result from the exchange of their results with companies, countries or for-profit organizations. This will allow the results of research to be exchanged under conditions of equality beyond the dependence of the scientist to whom he financed his research. In third place; It seems to me that there must be international mechanisms, in fact, they exist, in which we can all participate in conditions of equality that allow the socialization of the investigations we carry out. The ResearchGate is an excellent space for socializing the results of the research we do, but we need to move towards other mechanisms with greater capacity for mobility of scientists. Finally, scientists belong to specific countries that must protect our participation in international mechanisms, and not only must they protect us, they must offer advantageous financing conditions so that we can participate in spaces of agreement in exchange of knowledge that constitute the basis for sharing the results of our investigations. These are just some ideas on the subject, we can continue exchanging.