In our society, science has always played an important role in our development and existence, in one way or another. We are surrounded by things that we do not completely exclude, and sometimes not completely, and because of this, in our time, a separation is growing between scientists and those who do not have a scientific education. In this essay, I will discuss the cumulative effect and influence of public understanding of science in the changing world; As well as its important questions about the psychological consequences of confrontational incidents involving opposing points of view in scientific relationships. To help describe this complex view of science, I will refer to the article written by Brian Wynne titled Misunderstood Misunderstandings: Social Identities and the Public Adoption of Science. This article will help focus on defining the public understanding of science and serve as a perfect example in understanding the issues it raises. Before we can understand the public understanding of science, we must examine the current model of understanding science. science itself. The dominant scientific model influences the separation between scientists and citizens. It asserts that science is complicated and therefore creates trust and confidence in scientists, who are self-proclaimed professionals in this field. People are mentally trained to believe that scientists understand everything about science because they were trained in it. “Science produces real knowledge, but this knowledge is too complicated to be widely understood” (Wynnepg170). Thus, the public's opinions on scientific matters are unfounded due to their lack of expertise. In response, scientists rely on mid-paper “spill” of experiments. They now understand that scientists and science itself make mistakes, as evidenced by the misreading of cesium levels in the soil. But farmers also did not encourage coexistence with scientists, due to years of "misunderstood misunderstandings" and contempt for authority in each group's corresponding field. In conclusion, the Chernobyl disaster and its effects on the British sheep farming industry was an eye-opener. for society. The dominant view of science is clear-cut and reinforces the fact that science itself does not make mistakes. But once the conflict is introduced, we can see the true nature of what is happening.BibliographyBeth Harry, Janette Klingner. Abandon the deficit model. Educational leadership, 2007Sismondo Serigio. An introduction to science and technology studies. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2010