The 2nd annual conference of the ad hoc group Science Communication was dedicated to research on risk and uncertainty as important challenges for the present practice of science communication. The review firstly offers a short portrait of the ad hoc group Science Communicaiton as a newly established network of communication scholars and secondly reconstructs the course of the highliy spirited debate during the conference in Jena.

After the first paradigm shift from the deficit model to two-way communication, the field of science communication is in need of a second paradigm shift. This second shift sees communication as an inherently distributed element in the socio-technical system of science and technology development. Science communication is understood both from a systems perspective and its consecutive parts, in order to get a grip on the complex and dynamic reality of science, technology development and innovation in which scientists, industrial and governmental partners and the lay public collaborate. This essay reflects on the under-development of system thinking in science communication and the need to fix this. Legitimation for the second paradigm shift is found in the ‘crisis in social sciences’ that has led to a revival of system theory to balance the deterministic thinking in our grounding discipline. This essay concludes with the idea of a ‘Communication for Innovation-Lab’ as an experimental setting in which whole/part thinking in science communication can be shaped according to this second paradigm shift, forming seed crystals for future developments.

This paper tries to 1) identify the dominant media frames of science and 2) compare media selection and framing of science-related articles in Croatian daily newspapers during two politically and socioculturally different periods: the late socialism and the (post)transition. The research methodology was based on content and frame analysis which encompassed articles on science in daily press with the highest readership between 1986–1988, and 2006–2008. The main findings indicate changes in the selection of science topics as well as in the representation of individual frames. Changes reflected not only current events in the world of science but also wider social and journalistic values, as well as evaluations of the importance of specific topics.

This study re-examines the survey responses of embryonic stem cell research prepared for UK Department of Health (DH) in 2006. Aided by the novel method of semantic network analysis, the main purpose of the reanalysis is to “re-present” the overlooked layer of public opinion with respect to embryonic stem cell research, and to reflect on the under-represented public opinion. This critical review attempts to shed light on potential concerns of the UK public in the face of emerging life science policy. The article argues that a new way to encourage people’s articulation and engagement in science policy should be discussed. This means more active incorporation of concepts that represent people’s opinion, belief and value in research. By applying semantic network analysis, we introduce an effective way to visualize and evaluate people’s core frame of embryonic stem cell research.

For the past thirty years, The National Institute of Higher Education, Research, Science and Technology (NIHERST), Trinidad and Tobago, has been a pioneering force in science popularization both locally and regionally. The biennial NIHERST Sci-TechKnoFest is the Caribbean’s premier science festival, having hosted seven large-scale events catering to tens of thousands of patrons each. This article provides an overview of the role of NIHERST at the national development level, an in-depth look at the content of Sci-TechKnoFest 2013, its impacts on visitors and the way forward for the festival.

Creating science content for cultural contexts in which the audience are not primarily motivated by an interest in science, can provide exciting opportunities for experimenting with new approaches to science engagement. This article explores some of the learning gained, and practical methodologies developed by Einstein’s Garden, the science, nature and environment area of the Green Man Festival.

Public understanding of science has been replaced by engagement and participation, and science events, like festivals and science days, have become significant actors by offering direct contacts between scientists, public and policy-makers, as opportunities to engage and participate. After more than 20 years of festivals and events, the need for impact evidence is strong, although it is acknowledged that it will have to be based on complex data and observations. Many science events look for collaboration within the cultural sector. Social inclusion and participation in local and regional development are other important issues for the science events community.

The cultural phenomenon of ‘science festivals’ is ever expanding throughout the world, as universities, city and regional governments, and science engagement professionals alike embrace the concept of a focused ‘celebration’ of science. In the past however science festivals have been criticized for neglecting underrepresented audiences. This special issue explores the extent to which current science festivals have managed to engage with diverse publics, and identifies the key challenges facing the future of science festivals, most notably the need for deeper research into the impacts of science festivals.

Thailand’s National Science Fair is an annual two-week event held to promote science, encourage learning and prove that science is for everyone. Derived from the first ‘Thai National Science Day’ in 1982, the fair now hosts over 1 million visitors, with exhibits from over 50 national and international companies and institutions from governmental, educational and commercial sectors. Whilst the fair is normally held in Bangkok the outreach program holds mini fairs for 32 Universities and numerous schools across the nation for local participation in science week. This paper discusses the past, present and future of the fair, incorporating existing evaluation findings and identified key challenges.

In this book, Brian G. Southwell discusses how disparities in information-sharing arise and what can be done to alleviate them. In all sorts of ways and for all sorts of reasons, people have always sought to share information among their family and other social networks. However, this sharing has never been equal: inevitably, some people are better-informed than others and some are more socially-connected than others. At first glance, the plethora of communication tools and technologies available nowadays should help democratise information and reduce disparity but differences in how, when and with whom information is shared create conversation gaps and maintain inequalities. Southwell explores and catalogues information-sharing behaviours, discusses the factors that affect how and why we share information and addresses the questions of why disparities in information-sharing matter and what we can do about the gaps between ‘information-haves’ and ‘information have-nots’.