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 his latest book titled “Communication power”, the famous sociologist of information society Manuel Castells focuses on the way in which power takes shape and acts in information societies, and the role of communication in defining, structuring, and changing it. From the rise of “mass self-communication” to the role of environmental movements and neuropolitics, the network is the key structure at play and the main lens used to analyse the transformations we are witnessing. To support his thesis Castells links media studies, power theory and brain science, but his insistence on networks puts in danger his ability to give to his readers a comprehensive and coherent interpretative framework.

Tokyo Institute of Technology (TokyoTech) has been developing a number of methodologies to teach graduate students the theory and practice of science communication since 2005. One of the tools used is the science café, where students are taught about the background based primarily on theoretical models developed in the UK. They then apply that knowledge and adapt it the Japanese cultural context and plan, execute and review outcomes as part of their course. In this paper we review 4 years of experience in using science cafés in this educational context; we review the background to the students’ decision-making and consensus-building process towards deciding on the style and subject to be used, and the value this has in illuminating the cultural influences on the science café design and implementation. We also review the value of the science café as an educational tool and conclude that it has contributed to a number of teaching goals related to both knowledge and the personal skills required to function effectively in an international environment.

Scientific communication also pertains to the domain of society, where the formation of public opinion about science and technology is taking place. Concerning this process, two main points are exposed in the commentary. The first is a proposition on how the public as a social category may be conceptualized, and the second is the extent of the participation of members of the public in strengthening socialization and democratization practices in new, highly complex, contexts of scientific research. The public is conceptualized to include all citizens no matter their professional origin, including scientists, which promotes the idea of openness and equality of the public sphere where scientific issues are discussed. To be democratic in its practical-political setting, such a conception needs to deal with the problems of participation in a highly mediatized world, where not every member of the public could be included into scientific research. The author thus reflects on the mechanisms which would enable the formation of public forums where the trust of influential public actors as stakeholders of research can be tested.

In January this year, the US saw the publication of the preview of an impressive review work on the practices and the studies concerning learning science outside schools and universities, i.e. what is referred to as informal education. The document, promoted by the National Science Council of scientific academies (National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine), is the result of the work by a committee comprising 14 specialists who collected, discussed and then organized hundreds of documents on pedagogical premises, places, practices and pursuits concerning scientific informal education. Nobody doubts that museums, magazines, after-school activities, science festivals and any other science communication offers have a positive impact on the people’s knowledge, attitudes and behaviours. But what do we really know about what actually happens in these experiences? What sense should be given to the word “learning” in these cases? Do the different communication tools or environments have also a different impact? What factors make them more or less effective? These are the main questions the document wants to answer, carefully evaluating the present state of the art.

Jcom’s adventure was launched nearly eight years ago, when a group of lecturers and former students of the Master’s degree in Science Communication at SISSA of Trieste, decided to have training joined by the commitment to research on science communication issues.

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.

This study investigated how eighth-grade students perceived images of women in STEM and non-STEM careers. Thirty-six images were posted on-line; we measured five characteristics of each image. Forty students participated in the study. We found that there were significant differences in attractiveness, creativity, and intelligence between STEM and non-STEM images. There were no significant differences for good at her job and organization. In addition, there were no significant differences among STEM and non-STEM images of women of the same race.

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.

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.