: "Man can only enjoy what he knows when he can communicate it to someone. (...) We only seem to know something and to be certain of it when we have convinced all those through whom we can succeed in making ourselves heard of its truth." Giacomo Casanova, L'Icosaméron (1788) "Scientific communication" is usually thought of as being unidirectional: from the holders of knowledge to those who do not possess it. But these two categories are not relevant: the former know little, and the latter know a lot. Society is not divided into the knowledgeable on the one hand and the ignorant on the other. For the idea of communication to make sense, it is essential that scientists not only talk to laypeople, but above all, listen to them. In order to fulfil its function, mediation must be reciprocal and operate on the basis of exchange, and even confrontation. Two questions seem to me to be inseparable: - Can one produce knowledge without sharing it? - Can one disseminate knowledge without producing it? i.e.: - Can one research without teaching, popularising, etc.? * - Can one popularise without at least having tried out research? In other words, the production and transmission of scientific knowledge should no longer be thought of as separate things, and not even as two sides of the same reality. Science itself, after all, has shown us the existence of one-sided figures: the Möbius strip, whose surface can be continually traced without having to go from one side to the other, offers a useful metaphor of what a well-understood science would be, where nothing separates the creation and dissemination of knowledge. * I would like to draw on my own personal experience here - many of my (successful) research projects have been born out of my (unsuccessful) pedagogical experiences.