One of the most common, and probably one of the crucial questions about science centers and interactive exhibitions is often phrased as “Ok, it’s fun, but do they learn anything?”. What follows is not an attempt to answer this question; we will just use it as a starting point for a discussion about the role of explainers in science centers. Explainers are usually very motivated people, possessing a genuine interest in science and technology and a scientific background they are eager to share. And they feel everyone else should be as enthusiastic about science as they are. This is a legitimate aspiration, of course, but how exactly does one try to achieve this goal? What is the explainer’s role? Quite often, the answer to the question “…but do they learn anything?” is: “Yes, if we teach them”. It is simple, straightforward, probably it works to some extent, and this is the reasoning that makes explainers become… well, explainers. And this should be avoided.

Before analysing the role of the mediators in relation to scientific education, I deem it important to provide a short overview on how scientific museums evolved from the early curiosity cabinets to the modern web cast. Although the term “museum” is no longer adapted to the new structures employed for the diffusion of scientific and technical culture, the evolution of the means of presentation has indeed led to several forms of human mediation. This is of course the main topic we are going to take into consideration today, as it is an important element for the impact our exhibitions may have on the public. Decisions and choices vary from structure to structure for reasons that are sometimes justifiable but that are more often than not economic in nature, since wages, which are in any case very high no matter which country plays host, come to bear heavily especially on the budget of small and medium-sized structures.

In this paper I use the concepts “understanding of science” and “appreciation of science” to analyze selected case studies of current science communication in Denmark. The Danish science communication system has many similarities with science communication in other countries: the increasing political and scientific interest in science communication, the co-existence of many different kinds of science communication, and the multiple uses of the concepts of understanding vs. appreciation of science. I stress the international aspects of science communication, the national politico-scientific context as well as more local contexts as equally important conditions for understanding current Danish science communication.

This study presents the results of a qualitative analysis based on 13 crime news articles from Italian newspapers, to show that the belief that mental disorder predisposes many of those suffering from it to behave violently has endured, though the 180 bill was passed 25 years ago. Although the question has already been addressed by social psychologists and psychiatrists, it has not been discussed in great detail by science communication. However, this considers crime articles in newspapers as very interesting examples of indirect communication on health issues, where common belief prevails. The articles analyzed were about two matricides dating back to 1972 and 2001 respectively. The analysis showed that the belief that people with mental illnesses are recognizable, antisocial, can behave violently and cannot recover, has endured over many years. Nevertheless, statements about people with mental disorders are more accurate and the idea that the risk of violence among released mental patients is predictable, has been set aside.

The tsunami that took place on 26th December 2004 in the Indian Ocean and hurricane Katrina, that last August struck the Mexican Gulf, are two recent natural events that turned into catastrophes for mankind, causing several thousands victims. One of the reasons behind this can be traced back to the fact that useful information in the hands of scientists and experts did not reach the right people within the right time. A crushing defeat for risk communication was witnessed in these two recent events. All the more paradoxical since we live in what we like to name “the era of communication and information”.

Heureka is situated in the Helsinki Metropolitan area. Every year, on average, 300.000 visitors come to Heureka; it is one of the largest year-round attractions in the area. 20–25% of the visitors are school classes. Heureka has a main exhibition including Children’s Heureka and also always houses two temporary exhibitions. Special activities supplement the exhibitions: The Verne Theatre, Children’s Laboratory, The Open Laboratory, Science Theatre Minerva and the Basketball Rats.

During the last annual conference of ECSITE (European Collaborative for Science and Technology Exhibitions; Helsinki, June 2005), for the first time two discussion sessions were devoted to explainers, the innumerable people – young students mainly – who welcome visitors at exhibitions, museums and festivals, who animate laboratories and science shows, who guide, explain and lately also stimulate and manage discussions and participatory procedures. Thanks to the involvement of the speakers, who agreed to submit a broadened version of their papers, JCOM is glad to host the proceedings of these meetings. A great deal has to be done yet in order to analyse the complex European context and to fully understand the explainer’s professional profile.