In this commentary I explain why research institutions are neither doing science communication nor developing ‘public’ relations in the proper sense. Their activities are rather a mix of different things, serving various purposes and targets. However, dealing with PCST, their main responsibilities [should] include: promoting genuine communication and dialogue, being open and accessible to the public, providing high quality scientific information, ensuring good internal communication and educating their scientific staff.

We argue that the institutionalized push communication of academic institutions has become the dominant form of public science communication and has tended to force other forms and functions of science communication into the background. Given the new schemes of public funding, public communication of science now primarily serves the purpose of enabling academic institutions to promote themselves in a competition that has been forced upon them by the political domain. What academics working under these conditions say about themselves and their work (and what they do not) will depend crucially on the strategic communication goals and concepts of the organizations to which they belong. We surmise that the inherent logic of this form of science communication represents a potential threat to the autonomy of scientific research.

There is growing competition among publicly funded scientific institutes and universities to attract staff, students, funding and research partners. As a result, there has been increased emphasis on science communication activities in research institutes over the past decade. But are institutes communicating science simply for the sake of improving the institute’s image? In this set of commentaries we explore the relationship between science communication and public relations (PR) activities, in an attempt to clarify what research institutes are actually doing. The overall opinion of the authors is that science communication activities are almost always a form of PR. The press release is still the most popular science communication and PR tool. There is however disagreement over the usefulness of the press release and whether or not gaining public attention is actually good for science.

Science communication is an increasingly important field of activity, research and policy. It should not be assumed however, that science communication practices provide equitable and empowering opportunities for everyone. Social exclusion, inclusion and equity are key challenges for practitioners, researchers, policy makers and funders involved with science communication. In this commentary I reflect on the limitations of the ‘barriers approach to understanding social inclusion and exclusion from science communication and argue instead that a more complex perspective is needed. I conclude that placing equity at the heart of science communication is crucial for developing more inclusive science communication practices.

Socially inclusive science communication has to take place where people spend most of their time — within their communities. The concept of knowledge◦rooms uses empty shops in socially disadvantaged urban areas for offering low-threshold, interactive science center activities. The commentary carves out essential features that contributed to the success of the pilot project. Most importantly, the knowledge◦rooms had to be welcoming and comfortable for visitors of various backgrounds. The spaces were easy to access, the initiators were seen as trustworthy actors by temporarily becoming part of the community and the offer was respectful of the time and knowledge of its users.

Social inclusion is an emerging preoccupation in the science communication field. The political value of science communication (e.g. in terms of empowerment) and the necessity to address all audiences has always been considered, but in recent times the participation agenda has enriched the rationale and methodologies of the communication of science: social inclusion is not only an issue of access to knowledge, but also of governance and co-production.

Science centers are seen as places for communication of science very focused on the mise en scène of the content and methodologies of natural sciences. However, in the recent history, these institutions are transforming their role within education and transformation processes in the society they are engaged with. This communication presents a social project in Medellín, Colombia, that involves a vulnerable community, the local authorities of the city, academic institutions and NGO’s and a science center that is neighbor to this community.

Sharing scientific knowledge in conflict zones may not sound like a priority. Still science communicators can contribute to address social issues by inviting people to experience research practice, engaging them in scientific questioning and constructive dialog.

Evaluations of science communication activities before, during and after their implementation can provide findings that are useful in planning further activities. As some selected examples show, designing such evaluation is complex: they may involve assessment at various points, a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods, and show that impacts differ when seen from different perspectives.

The great increase in visitor studies on science museums and centres (SMC) has been marked also by a shift in approach to these studies, paying more attention to the social context of the visits and the nature of the experience. Evaluations have influenced directly SMC exhibition practices but more attention needs to be paid in research about the personal experiences of visits, how these are interpreted and how they contribute to scientific literacy.