Stingless bees are among the most dominant pollinators in the south tropics. As such, the rational beekeeping of stingless bee species, called meliponiculture, is an ancient and relevant activity, related to sustainable agricultural development, and which connects traditional knowledge to innovation and novelty. Given the relevance of this topic, this paper discusses the possibilities of a semiotically mediated communication between humans and Meliponini (stingless bees). Zoosemiotics, as the studies of animal views of the world, is the ideal modelling system for the investigation of the possibilities of mutual understanding between these two species. Starting from the premise that, for there to be inter-specific communication, there must be a shared code, and that this depends on the biological makeup and sensory apparatus of both organisms involved in the communication process, this research suggests that a possible way to communicate with stingless bees is with the use of olfactory (chemical) signals, since this channel seems to be common to both humans and bees. Considering that for human-animal relations one party must be able to recognize the other (iconic learning), it is revealed that chemical signals do allow bees to recognize individual humans, even going so far as profiling this person as ‘not a threat’. Finally, bees are seen to act cooperatively while the beekeeper is taking action to protect and maintain the nest, something that can be interpreted as an opening of semiotic relations, where the bees are deeming the beekeeper as part of their social group. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12304-022-09519-2.

After a long period during which the involvement of laypersons was considered undesirable in the Western tradition of science, we have recently witnessed numerous collaborations which suggest that the desirability of societal involvement in the scientific practice is becoming recognized. This article argues that the historical considerations that once led to this division in cognitive labour have been in transformation, having undergone diverse shifts. In a first instance, the exclusion of laypersons from science is analysed in terms of the key concepts of systematicity, universality, and authority. For that, two examples are given: the case of the British photographic survey and that of the American Museum of Natural History. Next, the dissolution of these barriers between scientists and laypersons is discussed and illustrated by examples: the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Association in Austria, Fukushima nuclear monitoring stations, and the French Association of Muscular Dystrophy. It is concluded that, for science to be truly democratized, co-produced knowledge needs to be integrated in political decision-making processes, which is currently still lacking. Furthermore, since expertise can also be found in society, non-certified experts should work in conjunction with scientists, yet at the same time, the divide between experts and non-experts must be maintained. The inclusion of non-scientific experts in decision-making is fundamentally different from the inclusion of lay stakeholders. Hence, different participatory roles should be expected from stakeholders, experts, or scientists, and the most important challenge now is how to formally define such roles.