"If there is the most productive work to science, it is one that seeks new relationships between branches of knowledge generally divided and promotes the association of certain attitudes to open original ways in search of the truth." Enriques, Science and rationalism (1912).Prejudices, preconceptions are still a substantial part of our culture, of our way of living and of relating to others. They are also barriers, often difficult to overcome, to a correct relationship between man and nature aimed at a more careful reading of the signals that the earth, the known universe, sends us. The book, through the analysis of the author G. Bonura, suggests two directions for reflection. The first invites us to consider how difficult it is, still today, to free ourselves from a dominant culture which, precisely for this reason, does not make us free to be free, to be what we really should be (in the book, the game of cat and mouse) . A correct reading of the signals that the earth and the universe send us has been hindered by an official science that has always had to confront with the different powers to which it has been subjected over time: religious power, political power, economic power. It also reminds us that the important turning point in this way of being "servants of power" occurs when the mouse is the source of information and representation of reality (Galileo Galilei). From that moment on, the man of science, and science itself understood as a cultural discipline, began a long journey of liberation from ancestral preconceptions and prejudices that had hitherto permeated the dominant knowledge and culture. The doors that gave access to true knowledge seemed wide open but the foundations of absolute philosophy remained unscathed. Towards the end of the nineteenth century; early twentieth century scientific rational thought experienced a profound crisis, the scientist cannot find the appropriate concepts and words to express physical reality. It is in this overcoming of barriers that the author stands out: his attitude is no longer that of supremacy, of saying what nature should be but of trying to understand what it really is. Thus, the interest of the scientist frees himself from sectoral, disciplinary knowledge to adopt one that includes everything. The second direction of reflection suggests a model of life which, in practice, is the opposite of the conflictual model suggested by the dominant philosophy. Nature communicates with man through that microscopic (invisible, unreal) world which is the only truly real thing that binds us to it.