Barbara Streicher is the executive manager of the Austrian Science Center Netzwerk, a network grouping over ninety Austrian institutions committed to science communication activities. Barbara used discussion games on many different occasions, all of which were outside a museum, and took place in places such as cafés, libraries, schools, but also shelters for homeless people and prisons. The communication exchange among participants always proved to be very open and respectful at the same time, even when the topics dealt with were especially sensitive and in social distress conditions. The game experiences were generally positive, whatever the places they were set in. The negative aspects are totally irrelevant and basically concern the time limitation and, in some cases, language difficulties. However, in her experience, there is still not an involvement of decision makers, and therefore it can be said that participation games are a way to help people form an opinion on controversial issues rather than an instrument with an impact on democratic governance.

How will peer to peer infrastructures, and the underlying intersubjective and ethical relational model that is implied by it, affect scientific practice? Are peer-to-peer forms of cooperation, based on open and free input of voluntary contributors, participatory processes of governance, and universal availability of the output, more productive than centralized alternatives? In this short introduction, Michel Bauwens reviews a number of open and free, participatory and commons oriented practices that are emerging in scientific research and practice, but which ultimately point to a more profound epistemological revolution linked to increased participatory consciousness between the scientist and his human, organic and inorganic research material.

In this commentary, we collected three essays from authors coming from different perspectives. They analyse the problem of power, participation and cooperation in projects of production of scientific knowledge held by users or peers: persons who do not belong to the institutionalised scientific community. These contributions are intended to give a more political and critical point of view on the themes developed and analysed in the research articles of this JCOM special issue on Peer-to-peer and user-led science. Michel Bauwens, Christopher Kelty and Mathieu O'Neil write about different aspects of P2P science. Nevertheless, the three worlds they delve into share the "aggressively active" attitude of the citizens who inhabit them. Those citizens claim to be part of the scientific process, and they use practices as heterogeneous as online peer-production of scientific knowledge, garage biology practiced with a hacker twist, or the crowdsourced creation of an encyclopedia page. All these claims and practices point to a problem in the current distribution of power. The relations between experts and non-experts are challenged by the rise of peer-to-peer science. Furthermore, the horizontal communities which live inside and outside the Net are not frictionless. Within peer-production mechanisms, the balance of power is an important issue which has to be carefully taken into account.

Online knowledge production sites do not rely on isolated experts but on collaborative processes, on the wisdom of the group or “crowd”. Some authors have argued that it is possible to combine traditional or credentialled expertise with collective production; others believe that traditional expertise's focus on correctness has been superseded by the affordances of digital networking, such as re-use and verifiability. This paper examines the costs of two kinds of “crowdsourced” encyclopedic projects: Citizendium, based on the work of credentialled and identified experts, faces a recruitment deficit; in contrast Wikipedia has proved wildly popular, but anti-credentialism and anonymity result in uncertainty, irresponsibility, the development of cliques and the growing importance of pseudo-legal competencies for conflict resolution. Finally the paper reflects on the wider social implications of focusing on what experts are rather than on what they are for.

This essay reflects on three figures that can be used to make sense of the changing nature of public participation in the life sciences today: outlaws, hackers and Victorian gentlemen. Occasioned by a symposium held at UCLA (Outlaw Biology: Public Participation in the Age of Big Bio), the essay introduces several different modes of participation (DIY Bio, Bio Art, At home clinical genetics, patient advocacy and others) and makes three points: 1) that public participation is first a problem of legitimacy, not legality or safety; 2) that public participation is itself enabled by and thrives on the infrastructure of mainstream biology; and 3) that we need a new set of concepts (other than inside/outside) for describing the nature of public participation in biological research and innovation today.

Science and Technology Studies have discussed extensively over the social factors that hinder and facilitate scientific-technological activities. Some authors even have attempted to grasp the cultural and power conflicts involved in the definition of concepts, paradigms and research programmes. I will present here a reflection on the concept of 'scientific mediation' which provides a complementary approach about the social networks that constrain, help and constitute scientific research activities. A definition of this concept and some empirical examples will be provided. Nonetheless, I want to emphasise the social processes and contexts that allow us to understand mediations as something else than mere communication and conflict resolution. Secondly, I will defend such an approach in order to support scientific research, but I think that the analysis of scientific mediation needs to be clearly separated from the ideal conceptions of knowledge-society and democratic-ethos. Socialisation of science, finally, is stressed in its meaning of collectively sharing useful knowledge for the improvement of social justice.

Within the research framework programmes, the European Commission's interest in societal issues pertaining to science and technology has been increasing over time. An important step in this direction has been taken with the establishment during the Seventh Research Framework Programme (FP7) of the theme "Science in Society" (SiS) in the Specific Programme "Capacities". From this perspective, the theoretical and practical horizon of science and technology (S&T) socialisation discussed in this issue of JCOM fits well with the SiS strategy. In fact, S&T socialisation refers, on the one hand, to the process of the adaptation of science to a changing society and, on the other hand, to the capacity of identifying and managing the social dynamics increasingly involved with scientific and technological research.

Twenty five years after the introduction of the concept of “collectivization of science” by Ziman, the importance of the research team continues to suffer of a narrow space, both in scientific literature and in the definition of academic policy. The debate ranges from a macro level, represented by changes in scientific and technological research to micro-analyses on the figure of the individual researcher. Nevertheless the scientific processes are affected by the increasingly multidisciplinary nature and the plurality of actors involved, as well as the social and cultural dynamics, often overlooked if not ignored. Our contribution aims to emphasize the importance of the research groups as the elementary unit of analysis in the definition of policies and for a better governance of universities.

Key challenges and opportunities are outlined in the ERA perspective and the role of evaluation as an instrument in the socialisation of science and technology is explored. Only an integrated and highly socialised science and technology, deeply embedded in society and involving all the relevant stakeholders, can address the complex problems Europe faces today and thus improve its research position and competitiveness worldwide.

Research systems are increasingly required to be more practically oriented and to address issues which appear more promising in economic and social results, with special reference to trans-disciplinary research fields, such as nanotechnology or ICTs; policy makers show a sharp tendency to establish research priorities and to drive research systems; universities and research institutions are asked to be more transparent and open to dialogue with social actors on contents, impacts, ethical implications and practical applications of scientific and technological research. These transformations affecting both the ways in which science and technology are produced and their relationships with society pose new challenges to European research. All the aspects of research activities are concerned, including the life of the research groups, the approaches to scientific evaluation, the development of European research policies and the interaction between researchers with their social environment. Continuing a reflection started in the last issue of JCOM, Luisa Prista, Evanthia Kalpazidou-Schmidt, Brigida Blasi, Sandra Romagnosi and Miguel Martínez López offered their contribution in identifying some of the key implications and risks which these changes are bringing about, mainly in the perspective of the construction of the European Research Area.