A few weeks ago, a well-meaning professor tried to explain the physiological process behind viruses and the human body in a tweet and was immediately criticized for a mistake in his information. He then issued an apology and deleted his erroneous tweet.

        Communicating science beyond the academic bubble is necessary to augmenting public understanding of health and environmental issues and helping individuals make well-informed personal decisions.

        However, scientists who engage in science communication must acknowledge that even in their area, their expertise is deep but narrow. They need to recognize the constraints in their own knowledge. That is not to suggest that they only write or present on their own research, but rather, that they consult with an expert if the topic is outside of their discipline. Fact-checking with a scientist who works in the specialty will prevent the unintentional spread of misinformation, and the process of doing so may yield tiny pieces of interesting new information that can be incorporated.

        Some have argued that the public is not educated enough to understand scientific information, especially for any complex phenomena, but this is absurd. Science instruction can be found at all levels of public education with most secondary schools offering classes on biology, physics, and chemistry. If anything, social media has shown that the public craves knowledge based on a solid scientific foundation. Even the public discourse that follows most scientific articles shows that online readers can understand even the most baffling of scientific principles.

        It is equally imperative to emphasize that being an expert on a topic does not automatically make a scholar qualified to communicate it to a nonscientific audience. A number of scientists recently have been offering public-aimed explanations of scientific phenomena. Even though they have appropriate credentials, they often do very little in the way of explaining. One biologist shared an intricate analogy involving a library, books, paper, a recipe, ingredients, and a cake to explain the process behind vaccines. Any explanation that requires a written key to keep track of what each item represents is not a clear example for public consumption.

        Science communication is a science in and of itself. It requires rigorous training and instruction. A scientist should take communication courses that can teach a person how to identify and eliminate jargon and how to develop effective analogies to explain complex concepts. One cannot assume communication expertise—imagine if someone just decided that they were a physicist and started trying to contribute to the field without the necessary background. Doing a poor job communicating science to the public will only create confusion and widen the gap between science and society, a gap that scientists are trying to close.

解析：D。根据题干中的social media可定位至原文第四段第三、四句。第三句指出，反而有社交媒体已显示，公众渴望获取到有坚实科学基础的知识，接着又在第四句中指出线上的读者甚至可以理解最令人费解的科学原理。结合第四段第一句提到的有些人认为公众无法理解科学信息，可知公众对科学的理解被低估了，D项与此内容相符，故为正确答案。

错项排除：A项利用第四段中的solid、foundation、understand和scientific principles进行干扰，但拼凑内容与原文文意不符，故排除。B项利用文中多次出现的communication、scientists和the public进行干扰，但Modern technology在文中无依据，故排除。C项利用第四段中的scientific articles进行干扰，但原文是说大多数科学文章下面的公开讨论也表明线上读者甚至可以理解最令人费解的科学原理，并不是科学文章越来越受大众欢迎，故C项排除。