This issue of the Journal of Science Communication raises a number of questions about the ways that new scientific research emerges from research institutions and in particular the role played by scientists, press officers and journalists in this process. This is not to suggest that the public don't play an equally important role, and several articles in this issue raise questions about public engagement, but to explore the dynamics at play in one specific arena: that of news production. In this editorial I explore the increasing reliance of science journalists on public relations sources and consider what questions this raises for science communication.

Public participation in decision-making has in the last decades become a common refrain in political and scientific discourse, yet it does not often truly come to fruition. The present study focuses on the underlying issue, that of the construction of the difference between scientific and public knowledge and its consequences. Through discourse analysis of scientific texts on sustainable development three distinct groups of Slovenian social scientists were discerned that differed in their views on the relationship between scientific and public knowledge and consequently the role and nature of public participation in decision-making processes. With a rise in participatory practices the preponderance of the deficit model found in this study remains problematic.

Public communication from research institutions often functions as both science communication and public relations. And while these are distinct functions, public relations efforts often serve as science communication tools. This is because successful science communication and public relations efforts for research institutions both rely on finding shared language and disseminating findings in context.

We argue that the institutionalized push communication of academic institutions has become the dominant form of public science communication and has tended to force other forms and functions of science communication into the background. Given the new schemes of public funding, public communication of science now primarily serves the purpose of enabling academic institutions to promote themselves in a competition that has been forced upon them by the political domain. What academics working under these conditions say about themselves and their work (and what they do not) will depend crucially on the strategic communication goals and concepts of the organizations to which they belong. We surmise that the inherent logic of this form of science communication represents a potential threat to the autonomy of scientific research.

The 13th International Public Communication of Science and Technology Conference (PCST) conference offered a valuable opportunity for over 500 science communicators to congregate and network with the international community. While the sheer size of the event made fostering debate somewhat of a challenge, the pertinent theme of ‘science communication for social inclusion and political engagement’, inspired some thought-provoking talks. Certainly, it was an appropriate time for this topic to be explored in Brazil, a developing country with a national government actively working towards greater social inclusion and local scientific development.

‘Who’s Asking: Native Science, Western Science, and Science Education’ explores two key questions for science education, communication and engagement; first, what is science and second, what do different ways of understanding science mean for science and for science engagement practices? Medin and Bang have combined perspectives from the social studies of science, philosophy of science and science education to argue that science could be more inclusive if reframed as a diverse endeavour. Medin and Bang provide a useful, extensive and wide-ranging discussion of how science works, the nature of science, the role of culture, gender and ethnicity in science, biases and norms, as well as how people engage with science and the world around them. They draw on their collaborative research developing science education programmes with Native American communities to illustrate the benefits of reconstructing science by drawing on more than ‘Western’ science in education practices. The book argues that reconceptualising science in science education is crucial for developing a more diverse, equitable and inclusive scientific community and scientific practices, as well as improving educational opportunities and outcomes for youth from diverse and non-dominant backgrounds.

The urgent state of our global environment calls for collective action, which depends in large part on effective science communication for better understanding and awareness. Activities and institutions that provide opportunities to learn about nature all ultimately rely on scientific findings about nature. Although science produces the knowledge and information about nature, for the content to be accessible and meaningful to the general public, it needs to be processed by what I call science content design. This process is similar to the concepts of interpretation in tourism, or aesthetic understanding in alternative science education. This study is a theoretical exploration on the definition and nature of science content design, what constitutes its process, and how the content can be designed. Focusing on the fields of macro-biology, I also discuss the types of biological content generally used in nature-based experiences, and examine model cases of biological content design.

The PCST conference attracts a substantial number of science communication academics and practitioners from all over the world. The conference is stimulating and refreshing but the size of it means that quality control is challenging for the organisers. This review highlights areas of both strengths and weaknesses whilst also making recommendations to the PCST committee for PCST 2016. The committee are encouraged to further strengthen the academic/practitioner combination and the international nature of the event. However, they are also recommended to ensure that work presented is of high quality with clear purposes and strong evaluative evidence presented.