"All scientific news is good news," would appear to be the motto of many people devoted to science communication. The reason for this is that the conceptual framework for such activity remains a 19th Century amalgam of scientific and human progress, and therefore any new "discovery," technological innovation, or theory is seen as progress, and therefore intrinsically positive. It is also why, when there is a new item that fails to reflect this ideal, it is taken as an anomaly, a deviation from what scientific endeavor ought to be, which his attributed to external causes. How can we break with this asymmetry? How are we to account for both events based on similar causes? How do we take a symmetrical approach to them? This article analyzes how the relationship between scientific and technological development and social progress and the role of science communication in their convergence was constructed. We then outline the elements that may intervene in the construction of a symmetrical approach to science communication, specifically with reference to a case that recently arouse heated controversy in the media. The conclusion is that the figure of the science communicator may be somewhat constrained in carrying out this task symmetrically, which in turn leads us to propose the creation of the profession of critic of science.