The concept of a project often corresponds to its history. In particular, you can identify this when you reconstruct, through the memories of its main players, the history of the oldest and longest-running Italian training school of science communication – the Master’s Degree in Science Communication – which has been held for sixteen years now at the Interdisciplinary Laboratory of the International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA-ISAS) of Trieste.

The MSc in Science Communication offered by the University of the West of England is taught in short three day blocks, designed specifically to cater for both full and part time students wishing to combine work and study effectively. Started in 2004, the programme emphasises the development of practical skills as well as developing a wider understanding of the key issues facing science communicators today. With this in mind, workshops explore theory and practice, considering the potential of a range of creative, targeted and innovative opportunities to enable greater community participation in scientific issues.

Within the UNAM (The National Autonomous University of Mexico) there is an institution, the Dirección General de Divulgación de la Ciencia (DGDC) devoted to the popularization of science through different media such as museums, exhibitions, journals, books, radio and TV programs, internet, workshops for children, demos, shows, plays, summer courses and outreach programs. Most of these products and materials are planned, designed and manufactured by a multidisciplinary team of professionals in the DGDC. Some of our most outstanding projects are: the creation and operation of two science museums, UNIVERSUM (on the university campus), and the Museo de la Luz (Museum of Light) in the center of the city, many temporary and traveling exhibitions, museums in other parts of the country and abroad and a monthly publication for young readers called ¿Cómo ves?

The Masters (MSc) in Science Communication at Dublin City University (Ireland)
draws on expertise from several disciplines in human and physical sciences.
The programme takes a broad view of communication that includes the various
kinds of interaction between institutions of science and of society, as well
as the diverse means of exchanging information and ideas. Nearly 200 students
from a wide variety of backgrounds have completed the programme since its
start in 1996, and they work in many different types of employment, from
information and outreach services, to science centres, to publishing and
journalism. Through the programme, and in the dissertation in particular,
students are encouraged to reflect critically on the place and performance
of science in society, and on relations between the cultures of natural sciences
and of humanities and social sciences.

“Science on the air” is an enjoyable and extremely well researched account of the origins of science programming in north American radio. From 1923 to the mid-50s, LaFollette takes us in a journey through the life and programs of many scientists, journalists and storytellers who chosed radio as a medium for science communication. A journey who allow the reader to visit many success, but also many incomprehension and missed opportunities, mainly by scientific institutions, who often failed to understand the potential of radio as a tool for science communication. It is a fully enjoyable journey, that leave the reader with an appetite to know how the US situation relates to other wonderful experiences around the world in the same years, and how those pioneer experiences influenced today's landscape.

In his latest book “The scientific life. A moral history of a late modern vocation”, the social historian of science Steven Shapin addresses the public image of contemporary scientists, their virtues and vocations. Who are, and how they represent themselves, those scientists who work on the edge between industry and academy, and who are responsible for the radical uncertainty embedded in the contemporary production of scientific knowledge? If “people matter”, as Shapin states, the genealogy he provides should encourage us to dig more deeply in the main stage of the virtues and ethos of scientists: the mass media.

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.

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.