This article examines the factors that encourage or discourage scientists to communicate their work through the media. A survey of Australian scientists found that they believed that media coverage of their work had significant benefits but that their research organizations offered them little support and often greeted their efforts with indifference. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the position is not very different in other countries. This study discusses a number of implications for managers of publicly funded research institutions and indicates changes they may consider to both the practices and the culture of their organizations.

Scholars have variously described different models of science communication over the past 20 years. However, there has been little assessment of theorised models against science communication practice. This article compares 515 science engagement activities recorded in a 2012 Australian audit against the theorised characteristics of the three dominant models of deficit, dialogue and participation. Most engagement activities had objectives that reflected a mix of deficit and dialogue activities. Despite increases in scientific controversies like climate change, there appears to be a paucity of participatory activities in Australia. Those that do exist are mostly about people being involved with science through activities like citizen science. These participatory activities appear to coexist with and perhaps even depend on deficit activities. Science communication scholars could develop their models by examining the full range of objectives for engagement found in practice and by recognising that any engagement will likely include a mix of approaches.

Twelve researchers from 11 countries used autoethnographic techniques, keeping diaries over 10 weeks of the COVID-19 crisis, to observe and reflect on changes in the role and cultural authority of science during important stages of viral activity and government action in their respective countries. We followed arguments, discussions and ideas generated by mass and social media about science and scientific expertise, observed patterns and shifts in narratives, and made international comparisons. During regular meetings via video conference, the participating researchers discussed theoretical approaches and our joint methodology for reflecting on our observations. This project is informed by social representations theory, agenda-setting, and frames of meaning associated with the rise and fall of expertise and trust. This paper presents our observations and reflections on the role and authority of science in our countries from March 10 to May 31, 2020. This is the first stage of a longer-term project that aims to identify, analyse and compare changes in science-society relationships over the course of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

This paper considers the trends and current realities of science journalism in Australia. It also examines the role that science journalism is playing in setting the agenda for media coverage of science and technology in Australia, and the influence of that coverage in developing an informed public willing to be involved in science debates. Surveys show that media attention to science and technology has increased considerably over the past decade. Yet coverage seems shallow and technology-based, and does not appear to have succeeded in making a real impact on people or in changing the ways they think about science and technology and its impact on their lives. The challenges currently facing science journalism in Australia include: the need for more in-depth and critical analysis of science and technology; overcoming the negative or trivial perceptions of editors, chiefs of staff, news directors and other gatekeepers about the importance of science and technology stories; and integrating science and technology with social, economic and political issues.

Most countries have national programs to increase the public awareness and understanding of science. The assumption behind these programs is that a scientifically literate population will ultimately lead to a healthy and economically prosperous country. How do we know if these programs achieve their aims? Are they evaluated, and if so, what methods are used? This report looks at the way the Australian Science and Technology Awareness Program has been evaluated and comments on the limitations of the methods used. It proposes a simple five-point model for evaluation. The conclusion is that the credibility of programs designed to enhance the public communication of science and technology will be questioned and funding threatened unless science communicators devote more resources to evaluation. On May 30, 2001, the Science and Technology Awareness Program was replaced by the National Innovation Awareness Strategy, a body with similar responsibilities.