Science, politics, industry, media, state-run and private organisations, private citizens: everyone has their own demands, their own heritage of knowledge, thoughts, opinions, aspirations, needs. Different worlds that interact, question one another, discuss; in one word: they communicate. It is a complicated process that requires professionals «who clearly understand the key aspects of the transmission of scientific knowledge to society through the different essential communication channels for multiple organizations». The purpose of this commentary is to cast some light upon the goals, the philosophy and the organisation behind some European and extra-European Master’s degrees in science communication. We have asked the directors of each of them to describe their founding elements, their origins, their specific features, their structure, their goals, the reasons why they were established and the evolution they have seen over their history.

There is a compelling need to ensure that the points of view and preferences of stakeholders are fully considered and incorporated into natural resources management strategies. Stakeholders include a diverse group of individuals in several sectors that have an interest in how natural resources are managed. Typically, stakeholders with an interest in groundwater resources include groups who could be affected by the manner in which the resource is managed (e.g., farmers who need water for irrigation; municipalities and individuals who need drinking water, agencies and organizations that want to maintain in-stream flows to support ecosystems, etc.) Refugio County in South Texas provides an interesting case study since several groups of water users in the region are working with researchers at Texas A&M University-Kingsville (TAMUK) to develop decision-support models that incorporate stakeholder concerns. The focus of this paper is to provide a series of arguments and approaches about the ways in which stakeholder issues have recently been incorporated into environmental models, to briefly describe some of the TAMUK efforts to develop groundwater models that incorporate stakeholder inputs, and to present and discuss a method in which communication research can be used to obtain stakeholder preferences input into modeling efforts.

Mouse-related research in the life sciences has expanded remarkably over the last two decades, resulting in growing use of the term “mouse model”. Our interviews with 64 leading Japanese life sciences researchers showed heterogeneities in the definition of “mouse model” in the Japanese life sciences community. Here, we discuss the implications for the relationship between the life sciences community and society in Japan that may result from this ambiguity in the terminology. It is suggested that, in Japanese life sciences, efforts by individual researchers to make their scientific information unambiguous and explanative are necessary.

The Science House of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) is a space where science is approached through the perspective of culture, seeking interdisciplinarity, stimulating debate among different areas of knowledge, and building a closer and more pleasant relationship between society and scientific knowledge.  Work with mediators has gone through significant changes over time and the paths chosen have been modified, re-evaluated and transformed.  The presence of mediators can mean the possibility of dialog, conversation, informal chat, and sharing.  It has been one of the main channels of communication with the general public.

The importance the Brazilian government has given in the last few years to the dissemination of science points out the necessity of a more discerning analysis about the establishment of this subject on the public agenda and the related public policies undertaken. This work tries to contribute to the debate as an inquiry about the policies to popularize and disseminate Science and Technology (S&T) established by the Science and Technology Popularization and Dissemination Department, which was created in 2004. In order to do so, theoretical references from Public Policy Analysis, the Studies of Science, Technology and Society (SSTS), and Public Communication of Science are used. Furthermore, we analyze some of the results from research on Science and Technology Understanding carried out in Brazil in 2006. As a final point, this associated approach aims at identifying some of the limiting factors related to science dissemination actions in Brazil.

In 2008 two collections were published: the Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, edited by Massimiano Bucchi and Brian Trench, and Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New models, new practices, edited by Donghong Cheng and five other scholars from China, Canada, Belgium and Australia. These books try to define and draw the boundaries of science communication’s field from both a theoretical and empirical point of view. But do we need to establish it as a distinct research field? For a number of decades, a growing community of scholars and communicators is trying to reply positively to this question, but the need to look outside the disciplinary boundaries, to other academic fields, is still vital.

The Exploratorium explainer program is not only important to the young people involved, but is an integral part of the museum culture. This initiative that started to help the youth of our community has blossomed into a program that has been very helpful to the science centre. In fact, the institution would not be complete without the fresh energy of the explainers. They help the Exploratorium to continue to give the real pear to its public.

The creation of a scientific culture through the experiences that can be offered in a museum is the central theme in the training of guides at Universum. Emphasising the social importance of science democratisation, providing the public with the chance to enjoy science itself, conceiving it as a human creation of extreme beauty, giving it the chance to be appreciated and enjoyed, presenting it from the different fields where an approach to it is possible, is something difficult to achieve outside a science museum and impossible without the intervention of the anfitriones.

Explainers have a longstanding presence in science museums and centres, and play a significant role in the institutions’ educational agenda. They interact with the public, and help make visitors’ experiences meaningful and memorable. Despite their valuable contributions, little research attention has been paid to the role and practice of these individuals. From the limited research literature that does exist, we know that museum educators employ a complexity of skills and knowledge. We also know such educators have a variety of experiences and qualifications – this creates a rich diversity within the field. Finally we know that the content and quality of programmes designed to educate novice explainers vary across institutions. Should we work toward a shared identity across institutions? Or even a “professionalization”? The paper explores the state of the art of the discussion around that questions.

In a refereed journal in the food and agriculture sector, papers were tracked over a five-year period during the introduction of electronic submissions. Papers originated in the Americas and Pacific region and were processed in Canada. Acceptance times for revised papers were reduced (P < 0.001) to 59% of the original, from 156.5 ± 69.1 days to 92.8 ± 57.5 days. But the start of electronic submission coincided with a change in the geographical origin of papers, with papers from Anglophone countries changing from a 61% majority to a 42% minority. It is possible that submissions from non-Anglophone sources were facilitated, thus creating challenges to the traditional Anglophone reviewer population.