The PCST (Public Communication of Science and Technology) conference, held every two years, offers an opportunity to chart the progress and direction of the international science communication community. The most recent conference, in Firenze, gave indications of a growing interest in science communication as cultural practice.

This case study describes the development of a climate change information system for New York State, one of the physically largest states in the United States. Agriculture (including dairy production and vineyards) and water-related tourism are large parts of the state economy, and both are expected to be affected dramatically by climate change. The highly politicized nature of the climate change debate in America makes the delivery of science-based information even more urgent and challenging. The United States does not have top-down science communication policies, as many countries do; this case will describe how diverse local and state agencies, corporations, NGOs, and other actors collaborated with university researchers to create a suite of products and online tools with stable, science-based information carefully crafted and targeted to avoid politicization and facilitate education and planning for community, agricultural and business planners and state policy makers who are making decisions now with 20 to 50 year time frames.

Improving communications between scientists and policy makers have being received more and more attention in China. Based on negotiation-boundary work theory (Jasanoff, 1990), this paper presents an analysis of the interface between scientists and policy makers by drawing on the Strategic High-tech Research and Development Program of China (863 Program). The analysis indicates, first, that it is very important of science advice in China, the negotiation and the consensus between scientists and policy makers is vital for policy making; second, that it is dangerous to rely on Technocracy in China, the policy makers give up the discretion while influence experts’ decisions by controlling the consist of scientist advisory committee, which directly result in politicalizing academic research. For scientists and policy makers in China, they should redefine their respective authority boundary, and make the interaction process open and transparent.

Danish agriculture and seed science have a history of successful collaboration spanning more than a hundred years. In this study, we interviewed 26 growers, consultants, and scientists from the Danish seed community focusing on their current knowledge status and on their views on improving scientific knowledge communication. Theoretically, we consider these actors participants in different communities of practice relating to the production of seeds (Seed-CoP), and we conclude that strong network collaboration is present among Danish seed-CoP effectuated by the valuable work undertaken by the consultants. We discovered a divergence in knowledge dissemination among the growers – an innovative group of growers with a high demand for new scientific knowledge versus a majority of growers content with the level of knowledge provided by the consultants. ‘Time’ was recognized as an important parameter, as only the innovative growers prioritized time allocation for additional knowledge search. To improve scientific knowledge dissemination and interdisciplinary collaboration among Danish seed-CoP we recommend a combination of face-to-face and online communication processes.

The paper examines the coverage of S&T related items published in selected English-language Indian newspapers in terms of their quantification and thematic representation. S&T is not the priority of the English-language newspapers in India. Even sports get several times more coverage than science. There is a case for amply visible representation of science in the press. Health, Environment, Space S&T, and Astronomy were the four dominant subjects covered. Most of the science covered in the newspapers was performed in the US, the UK and other advanced countries of Europe. Among all the newspapers, The Times of India devoted the maximum space to S&T coverage

While several scientific communities have discussed the emergence of Open Access publishing in depth, in the science communication community this debate has never been central. Scholars in most scientific disciplines have at their disposal Open Access options such as journals, repositories, preprint archives and the like. Ironically enough, a community devoted to the study of science’s communication structures is witnessing this transformation without being directly involved. Both structural and cultural obstacles hamper the growth of an Open Access sector in science communication publishing. With this editorial I hope to start a debate on the need for a more open communication environment in our academic practice.

We analyse the science and technology news reports covered by the Jornal Nacional, the Brazilian newscast with the largest audience, which is broadcast at prime time on a free-to-air channel. The constructed week methodology was used to compose a sample of 72 newscasts, representative of an entire year (from April 2009 to March 2010): 77 science and technology news reports were thus identified, occupying an average of 7.3% of the newscast's daily broadcasting time, and therefore giving evidence that such matters belong on the JN's agenda. Content analysis has enabled us to observe the following: most reports were focused on announcing research results; the main fields dealt with were medical science and health; the coverage of national research projects ranked highest; researchers and scientific institutes represented the main sources of the news items; scientists were mostly shown in their offices, and as far as interviews are concerned female scientists were a minority. The approach to science was more positive than negative and controversial aspects were scarcely explored.

Science communication processes are complex and uncertain. Designing and managing these processes using a step-by-step approach, allows those with science communication responsibility to manoeuvre between moral or normative issues, practical experiences, empirical data and theoretical foundations. The tool described in this study is an evidence-based questionnaire, tested in practice for feasibility. The key element of this decision aid is a challenge to the science communication practitioners to reflect on their attitudes, knowledge, reasoning and decision-making in a step-by-step manner to question the aim, function and impact of each issue and attendant communication process or strategy. This approach eventually leads to more professional science communication processes by systematic design. The Design-Based Research (DBR) derived from science education and applied in this study, may form a new methodology for further exploration of the gap between theory and practice in science communication and. Practitioners, scholars, and researchers all participate actively in DBR.

Should one aim at presenting a local or global science perspective in construing an effective museum narration for communicating scientific and technological issues in natural science? This article will attempt to respond to this question by presenting the data of an evaluation exercise undertaken by the Trento Natural History Museum (Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali – MTSN) from 2009 to 2011. The local dimension apparently lies at the heart of the museum’s appeal for its visitors: they associate their mountain surroundings with the symbol of the region’s identity, and appreciate in particular the efforts undertaken by the museum to communicate and conserve the mountain’s environment. Indeed, in their opinion, by protecting the mountains and disseminating knowledge about them, the museum indirectly acts as a custodian of the region’s own identity. However, interest in local issues far from rules out global scientific themes, whose presence is sought to complement and interact with the local discourse.

Rather than crystal ball gazing into the future of science journalism, this essay invites critical discussion over how much, if at all, has the web changed the way science is discussed in public? The short answer is no, or only slightly. Drawing on basic tenants of the social studies of technology, I argue there have always been more options than action when it comes to innovation in science writing. This essay takes three stories of the impact of the web on science journalism which I believe to be overstated, as well as three areas where I do think we can see change. None are clear-cut, as my chief aim here is to argue that our future is up for debate.