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.

Taking a wider view, departing from the specific case of the Hamburg exchange between artists and climate scientists, this comment envisages some radical potential for the collaboration of artists and climate scientists: moving beyond the traditional boundaries of social systems, artistic research and climate science may engage in a shared transdisciplinary learning process. They may communicate with the rest of society by engaging with others to develop ‘spaces of possibilities’, thus nurturing the creative resilience of communities.

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.

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.

This essay intends to present and reflect on the production and reception of sound language styles in a radio programme discussing science called Universidade das Criancas UFMG (UFMG Children’s University). This programme, aimed at children, is broadcast on the UFMG (Federal University of Minas Gerais) Educational Radio Station, located in Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.

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.

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.

Science festivals (or just “festivals”) are currently ascendant in the United States with more than 40 new initiatives emerging in just the past 5 years, but their story is not so easily told. The schedule of any one individual festival may contain a staggering array of events, and each festival is different both from year to year, and from other festivals. One multi-festival evaluation points to potential strengths of the format, as well as the importance of the participation of STEM practitioners. Collaboration and social identity formation are considered as powerful festival impacts, and potential challenges for festivals are discussed.

Over the past decades there has been an increasing recognition of the need to promote dialogue between science and society. Often this takes the form of formal processes, such as citizen’s juries, that are designed to allow the public to contribute their views on particular scientific research areas. But there are also many less formal mechanisms that promote a dialogue between science and society. This editorial considers science festivals and citizen science in this context and argues that we need a greater understanding of the potential impacts of these projects on the individuals involved, both scientists and the public.