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expertise with collective production; others believe that traditional expertise's focus on correctness has been superseded by the affordances of digital networking, such as re-use and verifiability.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.

In the last decades, production of science and technology as well as science-society relationships started changing rapidly. Research is asked to be more effective, fast, accountable, trans-disciplinary, result-oriented, policy-driven and able to generate benefits for people and firms in the short and middle run. While a strong intensification of science-society relationships is occurring, an increasing number of actors and stakeholders are involved in research production. At the same time, pervasiveness of technology is rendering users an active part in technological development; economic and social interests on science and technology are growing on a global scale; new democratic and ethical issues emerge. Despite the European institutions’ efforts, all those trends and phenomena are occurring in an extremely fragmented way. In this scenario, a fairly balanced and consistent co-evolution between science and society can no longer be taken for granted. This is just the starting point of the following comment section that, through the  Luciano d’Andrea, Sally Wyatt, Erik Aarden, Jos Lejten and Peter Sekloča’s writings, aims to analyse the different aspects and questions around the socialisation of science and technology’s matter.

In the Handbook on the socialisation of scientific and technological research, edited by Wiebe Bijker and Luciano d’Andrea, ‘socialisation’ is used to both describe and prescribe the ways in which science and technology are used in society. In this comment, ‘socialisation’ is discussed from two other points of view. First, the ways in which science and technology are sometimes used to organize, structure and dominate the social are identified. Second, drawing on Merton’s norms of science, an argument is made against over-socialising science and in favour of acknowledging and preserving the ‘special’ nature of science, for its own sake and because, at its best, science can offer an alternative model for other social activities.

Recent data delivered by Eurobarometer show how Europeans tend not to perceive science and technology as important factors for the Europe’s future. While showing the scarce development of scientific culture in Europe, these data allow to understand how science and technology are exposed to risk of social marginalization, notwithstanding the results they are attaining. In order to interpret this quite contradictory picture, an analytical framework revolving around the notion of “science and technology socialization” is proposed and developed. Implications of such an approach on research policies, on citizens’ participation and on the role of social sciences are also briefly examined.