In a beautiful Barcelona, bathed in sun, the 8th PCST Congress was celebrated at the beginning of June.1 Besides the magnificent location of this year, there are several other reasons to commemorate the event. The first reason is that the community of professionals and scholars interested in Public Communication of Science and Technology (science journalists and writers, scientists, sociologists, teachers, historians, science museum curators, etc.) is growing quickly.

The concept of a biosphere reserve was adopted by UNESCO, within the MAB Programme, launched in 1971, in order to promote and to demonstrate the harmonious relationships that should exist between people and the environment and, particularly, to promote a harmonization model of the environmental protection needs with those of the sustainable economical-social development. All the international conventions, the management and action plans accomplished in order to achieve the sustainable development objectives underline the great importance to establish a constructive dialogue, with impact on the long term decisions, between the decision makers and the wide public (especially with the local population).

Natural parks are a place where science communicates with the public, involving dimensions ranging from the knowledge of living species to the relationship between man and nature, the environmental policy decisions and the anthropic impact assessments. Natural parks are therefore an important arena for scientific communication where the "shared participation" tools play a fundamental role. To this end, we report a few international experiences that illustrate the role of the interest holders and the importance of coordination of the parties involved in the management of parks.

A feature of the management of natural resources in the coastal zone is that it involves multiple stakeholders. It has been suggested that the effectiveness of coastal management relies on the cooperation of this multitude of stakeholders in decision-making. This study reports on the findings of an investigation into the modes of interaction used by coastal researchers to communicate with stakeholders. A qualitative research methodology was used through both telephone and in-depth face-toface interviews to elucidate the mechanisms of interaction and, in turn, produce a typology of interaction modes. It was found that there were five main modes of interaction: Limited; Mediator Achieved; Key Stakeholder; Full Interaction and Mixed and that the discipline area in which the researcher worked did not dictate their preferred mode of interaction. It was concluded that although there are a number of limitations to effective participation, these interactions have significant implications for meaningful participation in the management of coastal resources.

Can (and should) there be a "Mediterranean model" of science communication? For those of us who work in the field of science communication in a country which is on the Mediterranean Sea, this has always been a question that spontaneously leaps to mind. This is because we "feel" there is something intangible in our way of communicating science that is rather similar to the way of a French, Spanish (or even Brazilian) colleague of ours, whereas it is slightly different from that of an American or British one. And yet, the more in depth this question is studied in time, the more complex the answer becomes.

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.

Free information works. In the sense that Open Access Journals, scientific journals which can be accessed at no cost, thereby guaranteeing free access to everyone, are at the same time able to guarantee the same quality as –or even better than- that of traditional journals, which can only be read by those willing to pay a price, be it the cover price or a subscription.

In the summer of 2003, a survey was carried out at the At-Bristol Science Centre (UK) to determine the effectiveness of the hands-on activities of "Explore". The section evaluated included 43 interactive experiences divided into two themes. The first, "Get Connected", consisted of examples of the latest digital technologies, such as a television studio, virtual volleyball, and radars. The second, "Curiosity Zone", was dedicated to natural phenomena and subdivided into three additional groups: "Natural Forces" which presented various forces of nature, "Focus on Light", which dealt with the wonder of light, and "Sound Space", reserved for the science of sound. The survey was divided into two phases: the first consisted in observing the public's interaction with the hands-on activities; the second, in consulting the staff. The methods adopted helped determine the effectiveness of the exhibitdesign and the evaluation itself highlighted the role of a promoter of science as an evaluator.