Search

The Exploratorium explainer program is not only important to the young people involved, but is an integral part of the museum culture. This initiative that started to help the youth of our community has blossomed into a program that has been very helpful to the science centre. In fact, the institution would not be complete without the fresh energy of the explainers. They help the Exploratorium to continue to give the real pear to its public.

The knowledge deficit model with regard to the public has been severely criticized in the sociology of the public perception of science. However, when dealing with public decisions regarding scientific matters, political and scientific institutions insist on defending the deficit model. The idea that only certified experts, or those with vast experience, should have the right to participate in decisions can bring about problems for the future of democracies. Through a type of "topography of ideas", in which some concepts from the social studies of science are used in order to think about these problems, and through the case study of public participation in the elaboration of the proposal of discounts in the fees charged for rural water use in Brazil, we will try to point out an alternative to the deficit model. This alternative includes a "minimum comprehension" of the scientific matters involved in the decision on the part of the participants, using criteria judged by the public itself.

The Science House of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) is a space where science is approached through the perspective of culture, seeking interdisciplinarity, stimulating debate among different areas of knowledge, and building a closer and more pleasant relationship between society and scientific knowledge.  Work with mediators has gone through significant changes over time and the paths chosen have been modified, re-evaluated and transformed.  The presence of mediators can mean the possibility of dialog, conversation, informal chat, and sharing.  It has been one of the main channels of communication with the general public.

Human health has currently to face a growing series of global issues. From the spread of HIV/AIDS to a fresh outbreak of tuberculosis, increasingly drug-resistant, the world is witnessing a return, mostly unexpected, of infectious diseases. At the same time, the economic growth in many regions of the globe is generating a sort of “epidemics of wellbeing diseases”: obesity, diabetes, heart disease.

In January 2006, my wife Susannah Sayler and I set out to photograph landscapes around the world that were being transformed by global warming. We called our work The Canary Project. From the beginning, as now, we had both activist aims and artistic ambitions. These two types of motivation overlap in places and in other places feel completely distinct. In general, we feel as though are carrying forward a torch that science cannot carry any further. Following are some thoughts on our role as activists and as artists and as collaborators with the scientific community.

This article explores whether some scientists have now actually been developing a type of science apt to be published as a piece of news, yet lacking a relevant scientific interest. Possibly, behind this behaviour there may be the present working culture, in which scientists live under the pressure of the dictatorship of the Science Citation Index (SCI) of the reference journals. This hypothesis is supported by a study demonstrating that there is a direct relation between publishing scientific results in the press and a subsequent increase in the SCI index. Many cases are here described, selected among the papers published in Nature that – according to experts – have a media interest rather than a scientific one. Furthermore, the case of the Dolly sheep cloning is studied as a paradigm for a situation in which media coverage actually destroyed the research group.

In the globalisation era, arts have provided food for thought on “how latitudes became forms”, to stress again that now, at global level, one should no longer define art as a contemplation “space”, but as an “environment”, a place for experience. On the other hand, already when Bern saw the inauguration of the historic exhibition “When Attitudes became Forms” in 1969, people realised that the problem was lying in the behaviour, in the attitude, of making arts towards the world. Basically, the formalistic concept of self-referentiality in a work of art was to be overcome, and attention was to be paid to procedures and contexts. In search of a new humanism in contact with the natural universe.

Artists have used the environment as a subject forever and there is a long history of artists whose works affect peoples’ awareness of and perceptions of their natural environments. But only relatively recently have other artists become part of the modern environmental movement and of efforts to educate college students and the population at large about environmental issues. Environmental studies programs need to take advantage of this increased interest on the part of artists, and global warming provides a perfect vehicle.

Despite the developed world’s climate-controlled interiors and easy access to all kinds of fresh produce at any time of year, our lives are still dependent upon the weather and climate. With global warming, our dependence is becoming even more apparent. I am an artist working with new technologies and last year I had the opportunity to go to Antarctica for two months on a US National Science Foundation-sponsored residency where I worked alongside scientists studying the global implications of Antarctic weather and climate change. The Antarctic is unlike any other place on earth. There, I wanted to find a way to more closely engage with the issue of global climate change.

Artists create new aesthetics to communicate new messages and new concerns. Apprehension about the climate, its changes, global warming and a disposition to anxiously running after an ideal sustainable development are part of the issues we all now experience with a certain degree of anxiety. This is why the sensitive antennae of artists have perceived and evolved that. Now they are committed on many fields to making their voice be heard and to raising ethical and social issues, also regarding the scientific instruments man possesses to manipulate nature. So they have now accessed the group of special interlocutors in the dialogue between science and society.