The multidisiciplinary Master’s Degree Program in Scientific and Cultural Communication (MDCC) began in the first semester of 2007. It is offered by the Laboratory of Advanced Studies in Journalism (Labjor) of the Creativity Development Nucleus (NUDECRI) and by the Institute of Language Studies (IEL), both of which are entities the State University of Campinas (UNICAMP). The program is also supported by the Department of Scientific and Technological Policy (DPCT) of the Geosciences Institute (IG) and by MediaTec – Media and Communication Technologies Laboratory of the Multimedia Department (DMM) of the Art Institute (IA). The objective of the MDCC is to train and enable researchers with in-depth theoretical knowledge about current questions related to science communication. A global vision of the systems of science and technology are joined together with an understanding of a solid, contemporary literary and cultural repertoire. The interaction among subjects offered in the MDCC seeks to provide an education that allows critical reflection about the main accomplishments of science, technology and culture in our current society and the way in which the mass or specialized media have worked in order to communicate these accomplishments. The areas of research focus on the analysis of cultural production and science communication within the most diverse means of information, such as print, radio, television and electronic media. There is a special emphasis on areas such as science and technical history and the sociology of science, as well as other spaces of science and cultural communication, such as museums, forums and events.

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.

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.

The knowledge deficit model with regard to the public has been severely criticized in the sociology of the public perception of science. However, when dealing with public decisions regarding scientific matters, political and scientific institutions insist on defending the deficit model. The idea that only certified experts, or those with vast experience, should have the right to participate in decisions can bring about problems for the future of democracies. Through a type of "topography of ideas", in which some concepts from the social studies of science are used in order to think about these problems, and through the case study of public participation in the elaboration of the proposal of discounts in the fees charged for rural water use in Brazil, we will try to point out an alternative to the deficit model. This alternative includes a "minimum comprehension" of the scientific matters involved in the decision on the part of the participants, using criteria judged by the public itself.

Human health has currently to face a growing series of global issues. From the spread of HIV/AIDS to a fresh outbreak of tuberculosis, increasingly drug-resistant, the world is witnessing a return, mostly unexpected, of infectious diseases. At the same time, the economic growth in many regions of the globe is generating a sort of “epidemics of wellbeing diseases”: obesity, diabetes, heart disease.