I would like to start with a brief news item in the August 1999 issue of National Geographic which gives some food for thought: "With 5,000 climbing routes, such as Double Dogleg and Walk on the Wild Side, California's Joshua Tree National Park attracts about 140,000 enthusiasts a year to test their skill on granite boulders. But some visitors view their metal bolts as defacements hammered into rocks.

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.

In The Areopagitica, his most important work of prose, John Milton mentions Galileo as the illustrious martyr who fought for the freedom of thought. The name of the great scientist is repeated several times in the English poet's epic masterpiece: Paradise Lost. In three different passages of the poem, Milton in fact celebrates the "Tuscan Artist" and his crucial achievements in astronomy. Nevertheless, in a subsequent passage, the poet addresses the Copernican issue without openly defending the heliocentric theory confirmed by Galileo's discoveries. In fact, he neither embraces the Copernican system nor the Ptolemaic one, but instead compares them, following a dialectic method where one cannot fail to notice an echo of Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the two Chief World Systems. Milton's literary work presents images of astronomy at that time, thus offering a valuable historical example of scientific communication through art.

In the name of God is the heading chosen by some researchers from a Middle Eastern country for their posters in an international conference on chemistry which has recently been held in Paris. This powerful message preceded the results of the researchers' work on the morphology, molecular structure, as well as the physical, chemical and mechanical properties of advanced polymeric materials. It was an unexpected statement, an unusual message, though certainly not an unprecedented one. It had nonetheless a striking effect in the context of a scientific conference attended by thousands of people from various ethnic and religious backgrounds.

The use of photography in the field of psychiatry is an eloquent example of the complex evolution of the relationship between science, communication and society. The research that follows analyses the development of such a relationship in a crucial period of the history of psychiatry: the 1970s. That was the time that witnessed the revolution of a science which admitted the failure of its methods and "instruments", mental hospitals. That was also the time when a profound change took place in the communicative methods of photography related to this uncertain field of knowledge. A group of photographers, driven by the political situation of the time, covered the end of mental hospitals.

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.

Halliday has demonstrated that changes in discourse function covary with changes in the grammatical resources a language makes available to construe discourse. Specifically, he outlined the ways in which nominalisation evolved as a resource for construing scientific reality as a world of logical relations among abstract entities. In the present article,