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：C。根据题干中的the biologist who shared an intricate analogy可定位至第五段。需要注意本题为例证题，一般情况下文章通常是先给出结论，然后再举例证明，所以需要结合例子前面的结论性内容来进行解答。原文第五段第一句提到，成为某一领域的专家并不意味着就一定具备向非科学受众传播相关知识的资格，接着第三句对这一结论进行解释：即使他们有相应的资历，他们也很少能给出有效的解释，第四句则通过生物学家分享复杂类比的例子来对此进行证明。由此可知，第五段整段都围绕开头第一句话进行论证，因此例子是用来说明即使是专家也不一定能成功地向大众传播科学，C项与此内容相符，是对第五段第一句的同义转述，故为正确答案。

错项排除：A项的illustrations在文中无依据，属于利用常识进行主观臆断，故排除。B项利用第五段中的appropriate credentials进行干扰，但原文是说“即使他们有相应的资历，他们也很少能给出有效的解释”，B项与此内容相悖，故排除。第四段最后一句提到，线上的读者甚至可以理解最令人费解的科学原理，D项与此内容相悖，故排除。