The 15th international conference of the Public Communication of Science and Technology network took place from April 4–6, 2018. Given its location in Dunedin, New Zealand/Ōtepoti, Aotearoa, it was a natural venue for two sessions on communicating science across cultures.

This case study of the development of a cross-cultural museum exhibition illustrates value and difficulties of cross-cultural collaboration. University researchers worked with a class of postgraduate science communication students and designers from the Otago Museum to produce a museum exhibition. ‘Wai ora, Mauri ora’ (‘Healthy environments, Healthy people’) provided visibility and public access to information about Māori work. The exhibition assignment provided an authentic assessment of student work, with a professional output. Working on the exhibition involved cross-cultural communication between Māori and pakehā (non-Māori) and between students and museum professionals. This provided a rich learning experience that took many of the players outside of their comfort zone.

There are strong arguments for and against having either a dedicated funding scheme for science communication in the next European Framework Programme, or mainstreaming upstream engagement across all disciplines. How could both approaches be combined? The success of either will depend on its operationalisation.

We argue that the commitment to science-society integration and Responsible Research and Innovation in past European framework programmes has already made considerable progress in better aligning research and innovation with European societies. The framework programmes have important socialisation effects and recent research point to positive trends across key areas of Responsible Research and Innovation within academic organisations. What appears to be a step away from the concerted efforts to facilitate European citizens' meaningful contribution to research and innovation in the upcoming Horizon Europe framework programme seems counter-productive and poorly timed.

With “Horizon Europe”, the European Commission sets out the framework for research and innovation in Europe over the next seven years. The proposal outlines the contours of an innovative science policy that is open and responsive to societal needs, and where societal actors jointly undertake missions to discover sustainable solutions to present-day and future challenges. In our commentary we point to a number of modifications needed to strengthen the cross-cutting implementation of activities for societal engagement and responsible research and innovation.

At the beginning of May, 2018, the European Commission has presented its proposal for Horizon Europe, the framework programme which defines priorities and budget distribution for the future of European Research and Innovation (2021–2027). The announcement has raised concerns within the community of stakeholders engaged in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), a democratization process leading to connecting science to the values and interests of European citizens by mean of participatory processes. Through this flash commentary we aim at providing a wide range of arguments, as well as strong examples and concrete suggestions, to the importance of maintaining and strengthening RRI within Horizon Europe, with the hope to inspire amendments to the current proposal.

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is gaining momentum worldwide and is envisaged as a needed tool to properly govern controversial innovative technology (i.e. genome editing, AI). Europe is considered a leader in fostering such approach, notably through its institutionalization. Even so, the future of European Research and Innovation (R&I) seems to be designed without a central role for RRI. After long effort and so much public EU money to support projects to ground RRI principles and practices in key contexts for the flourishing of science and technology in Europe, such as the industrial realm and regional settings, this counter-intuitive decision could undermine the leadership of Europe in prioritizing civil and human rights and needs, values and expectations of its citizens when steering science and technology, that European R&I strongly need to go further.

For decades the idea that scientists, policy makers and industry know best in research and innovation has been convincingly challenged. The concept of Responsible Research and Innovation [RRI] combines various strands of critique and takes up the idea that research and innovation need to be democratized and must engage with the public in order to serve the public. The proposed future EU research funding framework programme, Horizon Europe, excludes a specific program line on research in RRI. We propose a number of steps the European Parliament should take to institutionalize RRI in Horizon Europe and beyond.

This comment focuses on an early case of an open infrastructure that emerged in the 1990s in international astronomy. It targets the reasons for this infrastructure's tremendous success and starts with a few comments on the term ‘digital infrastructure’. Subsequently, it provides a brief description of the most important components of the infrastructure in astronomy. In a third step, the use of one component — the arXiv, an open access repository for manuscripts — is analyzed. It concludes with some considerations about the success and acceptance of this infrastructure in astronomy.

Web-based information and communication systems extend access for scientific communities to information such as publications or research data and provide the opportunity to collaborate with other scientists. Our comment gives a short sketch of the Information Service Sociology (short: FID Sociology), in which we aim at designing and developing such an information and communication infrastructure within the field of Sociology. To this end, it comprises (i) an approach for simplified publishing of open access publications, (ii) an integrated search across multiple sociological databases, and (iii) a collaboration platform to facilitate interaction and collaborations between members of the sociological community. Here, we mainly focus on the individual steps of the development of the collaboration platform.