Internal scientific communication and public communication of science and technology are growing in Brazil at a good pace, along with scientific productivity. In this Focus we will try to analyze the debate on standard or alternative models of communication of science that can be seen in the practice of science journalism and popular science in Brazil.

The Radio is an instrument of communication that has percolated to all the strata of the diverse Indian society. Its position has been consolidated through history as a regular companion and a source of information and entertainment. Its affordability, accessibility and non-reliance on costly resources have ensured its presence in almost all the households. It has become indispensable from kitchens, family rooms and even workspaces. It is one of the few or rather the only medium of communication after the print media wherein information dissemination still is primary and entertainment a secondary requirement, especially the rural areas.

If there is a peculiarity in the way of doing science and in the way of communicating science in Brazil, it is in the use of the idea of "deficit" in political and economic discourses, as well as in the discourses of socio-technical networks. Our proposal here is not to affirm or reject the existence of this deficit, but rather to understand its workings and its construction as a way of bringing about networks of interest that make use of this idea. For us, this is not an idea which is restricted to the discourse of researchers or of journalists and scientific broadcasters; there is also an echo in the general society, and in different spheres and situations. The idea of deficit with regard to scientific knowledge is functional in Brazil, in conjunction with the idea that the country itself has a deficiency in relation to developed countries. It is as if there were two levels of deficit which join together and empower each other.

What makes a science story? Behind the scene there are many choices: what, how and when to broadcast. Decisions are made according to the general criteria of news values to which we add two groups: personal and emerging criteria. General criteria of choices are news values for the science stories. According to Tonner, stories containing human interest are important in everyday life, report less complicate discoveries and science as a part of the broader subject comes to the media easily.

The international symposium Science on air: the role of radio in science communication was held in Trieste on 1 and 2 October, 2004. To our knowledge, it is the first conference ever specifically held on science in radio, and it is certainly the first time science radio journalists, researchers, and media experts from 16 different countries met to discuss their journalistic practice and the role of radio in science communication. The main results are presented in this section.

The scientific institution in Brazil is marching to a good rhythm. Despite problems in funding (and in the very irregular distribution of such funds), universities and private research centers changed and grew over the last few years. In 1999, Brazil (whose external debt is over 50% of GDP), invested 0.87% of GDP in Research & Development: a percentage comparable to that of several Mediterranean countries.

The international symposium "Science on air: the role of radio in science communication" was held in Trieste on 1 and 2 October, 2004. To our knowledge, it is the first conference ever specifically held on science on radio, and it is certainly the first time science radio journalists, researchers, and media experts from 16 different countries met to discuss their journalistic practice and the role of radio in science communication. The main results are presented in this article.

Historical background The BBC Radio Science Unit has its roots in two radio networks, going back more than 40 years. In the late 1950s, BBC External Services (now World Service), appointed a science correspondent and began a weekly science magazine programme. Initially called `Science and Industry', it changed its name in about 1964 to `Science in Action'. It is still running today, after more than 2000 editions, probably making it the longest running science show on radio.

The objective of the present paper is an attempt to measure the public understanding of science in the area of health and hygiene and test the efficacy of "cultural distance model". A pre-tested open-ended questionnaire was used for administering cross-sectional surveys at a religio-cultural festival in India. 3484 individuals were interviewed and responses were coded and entered to construct computer database. The data was used for determining the cultural distance of five scientific concepts from the quotidian life of the target population. In developing countries, the formal system of modern education operates as a strong determinant in shaping cultural structures of thoughts prevalent among the citizens. There exists a cultural distance between the scientific structure of configuring natural occurrences and peoples' complexity of thoughts. The distance varies significantly across the concepts that were subjected to the inspection and is a function of the nature of scientific information.

Never have there been so much science and so much technology on so many sides as now. The expansion of scientific information in the social sphere is frankly impressive. In newspapers and movies, on television and radio, scientific ideas circulate freely every day of the week. Science is in cell phones, shampoo, compact discs, Olympic athletes' clothing, food, perfumes, and in so many places that trying to enumerate them would be insane. After all, why should it be particularly strange to speak of science and technology if scientific thought finally molds our deepest fibers? Today's society, developed or not, lives immersed in a scientific and technological culture which guides the course of the most fundamental events. Even though, of course, the common sense obliges us to admit that the majority of us are not fully conscious of its reach and consequences. Perhaps this helps to understand why we still feel a certain shame when, in a social gathering, we comment that our profession consists of spreading science or analyzing the ways in which it circulates and its repercussions in the public opinion. It may be that we live with the fear that someone will look at us strangely and with disbelief and ask us to explain what scientific communication or the social studies of science consist of or, worse yet, that we find ourselves in the embarrassing situation of rehearsing an answer to justify the importance of thinking about science in daily life.