The science&art research played an important role in the topics covered by JCOM because actually the convergence of languages and themes of art and science increasingly continue to act synergistically in the most diverse knowledge fields.

Scientific journalism ought to pay attention not only to the “products” of science, but also to the ways in which it operates in any given historical and political   context. A critical analysis of the presently dominant rhetoric of innovation and unlimited growth is necessary to shed light on the relationship between science  and democracy. Equally profitable would be a thorough investigation of past and present controversies on the role of scientists in decision-making.

New forms of co-working spaces and community labs, such as Hackerspaces and Fablabs, but also open science and citizen science initiatives, by involving new actors often described as makers, tinkerers, and hackers enable innovation and research outside the walls of academia and industry. These alternative and global innovation networks are test beds for studying new forms of public engagement and participation in emergent scientific fields, such as  nanotechnology. The article shows how these grassroots and Do-It-Yourself (DIY) or Do-It-With- Others (DIWO) research subcultures connect politics with design, community building with prototype testing, and how they establish an experimental approach for policy deliberation. We will consider a case study of a temporary, ad hoc and mobile NanoŠmano Lab in Ljubljana, Slovenia, which specializes in nanoscale materials and designs, to demonstrate the potential of prototypes and collective tinkering to become models for public involvement in emergent science and technology fields. This Hackerspace model of governance offers an alternative to the usual route of disruptive innovation, which starts in the R&D laboratory where it waits to be scrutinized by some government or regulatory body and be utilized by a start-up or mega corporation, and only then be safely taken up by the public. Hackerspaces operate through “disruptive prototypes” that create decentralized and nonlinear value chains and interactions between research, design and policy. Adoption of technology goes hand in hand with collective tinkering, and deliberation and assessment are happening simultaneously while prototyping. In this sense, disruptive prototypes can be said to support experimental governance. This policy closely follows some recent calls for “greater reflexiveness in the R&D process” via anticipatory policy and real-time assessment approaches, rather than more common, timeworn precautionary principles.

How can technoscientific controversies be interpreted in terms of their public communication? This essay explores the case of nanotechnology to describe how one of the most innovative and cutting-edge technoscientific fields has moved from a grey goo scenario of PCTS that described similarities with biotechnology and GMOs, underlining the risks of potential conflicts between science and society, to the idea of an ‘internal’ controversy, that is a debate mainly present in discussions within professional groups. The conclusions suggest how the study of public communication of technoscientific controversies, and in particular of  internal controversies such as nanotechnology, has lead to consideration of the idea of moving from a risk frame in public participation initiatives to a more open discussion on daily life, work activities, technological innovation, cultural representations, art and others.

In the last decade, social studies of nanotechnology have been characterized by a specific focus on the role of communication and cultural representations.  Scholars have documented a proliferation of the forms through which this research area has been represented, communicated and debated within different social contexts. This Jcom section concentrates on the proliferation of cultural spaces where nanotechnologies are articulated and shaped in society. The intent is that of showing how these different cultural spaces — with their specific features and implications — raise multiple issues and involve distinct perspectives concerning nanotechnology. More specifically, the articles presented in the section outline and characterize three different cultural spaces where nanotechnologies are communicated: science museums, hackerspaces and the web. The overall section’s argumentation is that the study of the  communication of nanotechnology requires to consider a multiplicity of different cultural spaces and, moreover, that the attention to the differences existing between these spaces is a powerful perspective to explore and make sense of the varieties of ways in which nanotechnologies circulate in society.

Science museums perform representations of science and that of its publics. They have been called to intervene in nanotechnology within global public policy programs expected to develop the field. This paper discusses the case of European science museums. It starts by examining the case of a European project that involved science museums working on nanotechnology. This example illustrates a "democratic imperative" that European science museums face, and which implies a transformation of their public role. It offers a path for the analysis of the current evolution of European science communication perspective – from "public understanding of science" to "scientific understanding of the public" – and of the political construction this evolution enacts.

Policy-makers, researchers and the general public seem to agree that there is a need for evidence-based policies. Here we report on a case study which explores environmental policy-making at the national and local levels in one European country, Portugal. The case study focuses on understanding how that scientific evidence is used and valued by policy-makers. Our data show that in Portugal there are opportunities at national and local level for scientific evidence to influence environmental policy-making and there is a general belief amongst policy-makers that scientific evidence is essential for the development of solid and trustworthy policies. However, challenges remain, including difficulties in working together and challenges imposed by the policy cycle. The bridge may not yet be fully constructed, but in Portugal, policy-makers largely recognise the need for scientific evidence and the research community is beginning to reach out, looking for ways to connect with the policy community.

This case study describes the development of a climate change information system for New York State, one of the physically largest states in the United States. Agriculture (including dairy production and vineyards) and water-related tourism are large parts of the state economy, and both are expected to be affected dramatically by climate change. The highly politicized nature of the climate change debate in America makes the delivery of science-based information even more urgent and challenging. The United States does not have top-down science communication policies, as many countries do; this case will describe how diverse local and state agencies, corporations, NGOs, and other actors collaborated with university researchers to create a suite of products and online tools with stable, science-based information carefully crafted and targeted to avoid politicization and facilitate education and planning for community, agricultural and business planners and state policy makers who are making decisions now with 20 to 50 year time frames.

Despite an initial tendency to disregard Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) contributions, NGOs have now entered the fishery world, where debates should be carried out on the basis of different interpretations of sound scientific data. Such an approach is expected to be obvious, but this does not prove to be always true. NGOs and the research body that produced the scientific data are confused by other stakeholders and understanding scientific publications is regarded as not necessary. Further, there is a gap between the progress of scientific knowledge and the scientific approach adopted in policy resolutions. This opens new opportunities to carry out focused scientific communication.

Improving communications between scientists and policy makers have being received more and more attention in China. Based on negotiation-boundary work theory (Jasanoff, 1990), this paper presents an analysis of the interface between scientists and policy makers by drawing on the Strategic High-tech Research and Development Program of China (863 Program). The analysis indicates, first, that it is very important of science advice in China, the negotiation and the consensus between scientists and policy makers is vital for policy making; second, that it is dangerous to rely on Technocracy in China, the policy makers give up the discretion while influence experts’ decisions by controlling the consist of scientist advisory committee, which directly result in politicalizing academic research. For scientists and policy makers in China, they should redefine their respective authority boundary, and make the interaction process open and transparent.