There have been countless innovations in the realm of science museology after the foundation of the Exploratorium of San Francisco and of the Ontario Science Center of Toronto with, among other things, the introduction of the exhibits hands-on, the use of new technologies and the arrival of virtuality.But most of all a new dialogue was launched, also as a form of transformation of reality. And what is drama but fiction and transformation of reality?This statement is the basis for the belief that museums and the theatre should continue, if not even start, a path to move closer, so as to make their languages work at the service of each other.A dialogical interaction which is difficult (as both languages and their interpreters crave for superiority), strong (the place for communication becomes multi-channel), but necessary (in view of a systemic approach of science communication).It is necessary especially to build an all-encompassing museum to fully play a sociological role of study, interpretation and determination of human society.

The recent events related to the spread of the influenza virus A (H1N1) have drawn again the attention of science communication experts to old issues, including a couple of issues we deem particularly important: risk communication and the role of scientific journalists in the society of knowledge.

There is a fundamental difference between artists, who use science as an object of social examination, and artists, who believe that science represents a component of their expressive style. The idea that different ideological manipulations of the Art&Science concept can cause a distorted view on this fascinating and at the same time controversial relation is becoming clear. In our projects we use different technological and scientific applications; to us technology is an integral part of our artistic expression. The scientific and analytical approach that we use when we investigate and solve various operations within our projects, indicates that our system is based on collective and systematic work and it allows us to understand better the different problems and relations of contemporary society. Art has always played an important role in the system of the communication of ideas and feelings in a tight connection with contemporary society. No wonder that the artist today uses the methods and technologies of modern and sophisticated devices. We are all users of new technologies, developed with the help of scientific discoveries in order to satisfy our needs. Anyway the belief that society borrowed research in the field of science and technology in order to survive is incorrect.

In present times it would not be appropriate to say art made a “debut” in science centres, as it has been a feature since the beginning of their history, and it appeared precisely in the ‘parent’ science centre, the Exploratorium. However, now it is time to check the progress. There is unrest for this issue, as in history-making times, and it is worthwhile to follow the new developments and hear the words of the coordinators of the artistic activities in science centres and, more in general, in science museums, and also of the artists involved in the process. The goal is to promote a debate on the final results of this phenomenon and on what will happen next. Also, emphasis should be put on the importance for each museum to define right from the start an ‘art policy’, even a complex one, but somehow structured, that may be employed at many levels according to the needs of the museum itself.

The Natural History Museum’s contemporary arts programme is described and discussed, in particular the developments since 2006. The various models of engaging with artists and the rationale behind the resulting exhibitions and displays are explained in more detail. Artists who have created new works enabled through the programme include Mark Dion, choreographer Siobhan Davies, Tania Kovats, Tessa Farmer, Dan Harvey and Heather Ackroyd.

Drawing on the example of Leonardo da Vinci, who was able to combine arts and science in his work, the National Museum of Science and Technology of Milan has always pursued the blending and the dialogue of humanistic and scientific knowledge. It has employed this approach in all of its activities, from the set design of exhibition departments to the acquisition of collections and, more recently, in the dialogue with the public. Now more than ever, following a renewal path for the Museum, these guidelines are being subject to research to achieve a new and more up-to-date interpretation.

"The Art of Discovery" discusses an ambitious educational program taught by the artist which incorporated locative media, contemporary art, site specificity, and creative work as a proposal for the integration of art, technology and science.

The climate change issue has become increasingly present in our society in the last decade and central also to communication studies. In the e-book “Communicating Climate Change: Discourses, Mediations and Perceptions”, edited by Anabela Carvalho, various scholars investigate how climate change challenges communication by looking at three main aspects: the discourses of a variety of social actors on climate change; the reconstruction of those discourses in the media; the citizens’ perceptions, understandings and attitudes in relation to climate change.

Hannah Redler’s paper examines the 13 year history of Science Museum, London’s contemporary art programme and explores how changing cultural conditions and the changing function of museums are making the questions raised by bringing art into the Science Museum context increasingly significant. It looks at how Science Museum Arts Projects started as a quirky, experimental sideline aimed at shaking up the Museum and its visitors’ assumptions, but has now become a fundamental means by which the Science Museum chooses to represent the impact of science, medicine, engineering and technology on peoples’ everyday lives.

Standards and Good Practice guidelines provide explicit criteria for maintaining quality and integrity in science. But research practices are now openly questioned. I defend the idea that the tension between norms and practices in scientific writing must be addressed primarily by the scientific community if quality of the sources in the process of science communication is to be guaranteed. This paper provides evidence that scientific writing and researchers’writing practices do not reflect expected quality criteria. Evidence is based on four complementary analyses of: (i) communication manuals, journals’ recommendations to authors and the norms they convey (ii) feedback given by reviewers (ii) interviews and questionnaires (iv) researchers’ written productions and writing practices. I show that researchers’ writing and communication practices are very often in total contradiction with the norms and standards the scientific community has established. Unless researchers can improve and guarantee quality and integrity of the sources, the whole system of science communication will be threatened.