The present comment examines to what extent science communication has attained the status of an academic discipline and a distinct research field, as opposed to the common view that science communication is merely a sub-discipline of media studies In his review How to establish PCST. Two handbooks on science communication (JCOM 7(4) December 2008), Alessandro Delfanti queries a claim in the bookCommunicating science in social contexts that science communication already 'is a distinct research field'. He sees in both books 'an explicit effort to establish PCST as an independent academic field, different from both science and technology studies and communication and media theory'.After pondering the question of whether we really need the creation of a new discipline such as public communication of science, Delfanti concludes that despite the growing strength and quality of the field, PCST still has some work to do if it is to distinguish itself as separate from fields such as science and technology studies, and media and communication studies. JCOM has asked the editors of the books to respond: "Starting from the experience of your book, it would be interesting for us to have a contribution concerning what is "specific" of science communication research. What does distinguish it from something that could be considered a sub-discipline of media studies, sociology of science or history of science? In addition, which is the relation between research in science communication and the more general field of Science and Technology Studies? In other words, why does science communication deserve a special attention as an academic discipline?'We may not be able to demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that science communication has attained the status of 'a discipline'. Apart from anything else, the definitions are varied and the ground is hotly contested. What we can do, though, is to chart the progress science communication has made as an emerging subject over the last 50 years in terms of a number of measures.Science communication has established an identity over the last 50 years. In the aftermath of WW2, governments increasingly regarded science as important. At the same time they recognised their own lack of skills in the area, so appointed special advisors to lead presidents and politicians through science-based issues.James Killian was appointed in 1957 as Special Assistant to the US President for Science and Technology, followed in 1965 by Sir Solly Zuckerman's appointment as Chief Scientific Adviser in the UK 1 . These were the first two advisers and others followed, all performing a classic communication role of translating the significance of research results for a lay audience. A little earlier, "science communication (or popularization)" had been enshrined in the constitutions of both India and China. So the subject had a political imperative.

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.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Previous works on popularization of science in magazines were strongly influenced by traditional methods used with scientific discourse, and pictures were only analyzed in terms of efficiency. This paper will focus on the role of imagery portraying science and scientists in Science et Vie and La Recherche, two French magazines. La Recherche uses more complex photographs, requiring more scientific knowledge from the reader, while Science et Vie uses more high-tech pictures. Both styles of picture originate from genuine scientific endeavours and have didactic aims. Science is then integrated into a system of familiar representations shown through stereotyped pictures (test tubes, etc.) revealing the process of science: the labs and their techniques rather than the results. However, La Recherche focuses more on portraying scientists as a group, especially recipients of honorary distinctions. The frequent use of `chalk and blackboard' is one way of dogmatizing scientific knowledge while pictures of scientists in their private lives is a way of popularizing and humanizing science. The scientist remains an archetype of knowledge — yet still as mortal as the layman. But science stays isolated from its economic or political context. In contrast to popular magazines, primary scientific journals never portray scientists, science being enunciated without reference to the enunciator, striving for absolute intellectualization.

The Network for the Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST), which allowed us to test concepts, recruit authors and launch the book to the international community of science communication researchers and practitioners.The 108 authors who wrote the 40 chapters. They were willing, responsive and cheerful in drafting, revising and re-drafting their chapters.Bernard Schiele for his exhaustive work in compiling and analysing the data from the timelines.