Heureka is situated in the Helsinki Metropolitan area. Every year, on average, 300.000 visitors come to Heureka; it is one of the largest year-round attractions in the area. 20–25% of the visitors are school classes. Heureka has a main exhibition including Children’s Heureka and also always houses two temporary exhibitions. Special activities supplement the exhibitions: The Verne Theatre, Children’s Laboratory, The Open Laboratory, Science Theatre Minerva and the Basketball Rats.

Before analysing the role of the mediators in relation to scientific education, I deem it important to provide a short overview on how scientific museums evolved from the early curiosity cabinets to the modern web cast. Although the term “museum” is no longer adapted to the new structures employed for the diffusion of scientific and technical culture, the evolution of the means of presentation has indeed led to several forms of human mediation. This is of course the main topic we are going to take into consideration today, as it is an important element for the impact our exhibitions may have on the public. Decisions and choices vary from structure to structure for reasons that are sometimes justifiable but that are more often than not economic in nature, since wages, which are in any case very high no matter which country plays host, come to bear heavily especially on the budget of small and medium-sized structures.

One of the most common, and probably one of the crucial questions about science centers and interactive exhibitions is often phrased as “Ok, it’s fun, but do they learn anything?”. What follows is not an attempt to answer this question; we will just use it as a starting point for a discussion about the role of explainers in science centers. Explainers are usually very motivated people, possessing a genuine interest in science and technology and a scientific background they are eager to share. And they feel everyone else should be as enthusiastic about science as they are. This is a legitimate aspiration, of course, but how exactly does one try to achieve this goal? What is the explainer’s role? Quite often, the answer to the question “…but do they learn anything?” is: “Yes, if we teach them”. It is simple, straightforward, probably it works to some extent, and this is the reasoning that makes explainers become… well, explainers. And this should be avoided.

Techniquest was established in 1986, and in 1995 moved to its current premises at Cardiff Bay, South Wales. This was the first purpose-built science centre in the UK. It receives around 200,000 visitors every year to its exhibition, and to its programmes for schools and public audiences in the theatre, laboratory, discovery room and planetarium. The author joined the Techniquest project in 1985, became a staff member in 1990 and was the Chief Executive from 1997 until his retirement in 2004. Techniquest has three “out-stations” in Wales, and is responsible for the supply and maintenance of exhibits to the Look Out Discovery Centre in Bracknell, England. There is a Techniquest gallery at the Lisbon Pavilhão do Conhecimento - Ciência Viva, and a traveling exhibition, SciQuest, in South Africa which was also supplied by Techniquest. All these centres rely on the effective intervention of “Explainers” (at Techniquest we call them “Helpers”) to provide the best possible experience for visitors. At its most demanding, the tasks of an Explainer are varied and intensive, yet there may be times when the duties are mundane or even dull. When you rely on people to act as both hosts and housekeepers, to provide both support and stimulus, and to be both welcoming and watchful, you are asking a great deal. This article raises some of the issues concerned with the recruitment and retention of Explainers, their training and management, and the way in which their role is recognized and valued by the science centre as a whole.

This study presents the results of a qualitative analysis based on 13 crime news articles from Italian newspapers, to show that the belief that mental disorder predisposes many of those suffering from it to behave violently has endured, though the 180 bill was passed 25 years ago. Although the question has already been addressed by social psychologists and psychiatrists, it has not been discussed in great detail by science communication. However, this considers crime articles in newspapers as very interesting examples of indirect communication on health issues, where common belief prevails. The articles analyzed were about two matricides dating back to 1972 and 2001 respectively. The analysis showed that the belief that people with mental illnesses are recognizable, antisocial, can behave violently and cannot recover, has endured over many years. Nevertheless, statements about people with mental disorders are more accurate and the idea that the risk of violence among released mental patients is predictable, has been set aside.

This item is available only in the original language