A new form of knowledge production is emerging while the traditional / academic form maintains itself : M. Gibbons calls this new form “Mode 2” to distinguish it from Mode 1”. Changes affect:

• The knowledge produced
• The ways to produce knowledge
• The context in which knowledge is produced
• The ways in which knowledge is organized
• The systems of evaluation
• The different mechanisms which control the quality of the knowledge produced

The evolution towards Mode 2 of knowledge production has many consequences – especially on the espitemological status of the knowledge produced: in Mode 2 this status changes, because the validation process takes place in the context of application..

The concept of paradigm is also revisited: the paradigm in Mode 1 can be described as the set of scientific truths accepted by a scientific community, the product of specialists’ consensus determining which problems are worth studying, within disciplinary structures and institutions – that is a self-sufficient environment in which survival strategies are constantly developed.

Science can no longer exist distinct from a society to which it would deliver wisdom and knowledge: it can no longer exist as a self-contained, autonomous enclave, for fear of being crushed down by conflicting economical and political interests. The relations between science and society are dynamic, both being shaped in the interaction process.

What are the implications for the researcher :

• Because he must take into account the context of application, the researcher is much more aware of the implications of his research. He no longer can only bring scientific or technical answers to problems. He must take into account the values and needs of end-users who so far have not been involved in the process of scientific or technological innovation. Stakeholders becoming progressively involved n the process, their aspirations and projects are taken into greater consideration.
• Disciplines are no longer the only places where interesting questions are formulated and where validation and evaluation processes take place. Transdisciplinarity implies a capacity to formulate problems and questions within local and specific contexts of application. It is a dynamic process, what the authors call "problem solving capacity on the move".

Issues :

1. The public - indeed, the many publics - are not anti-science. But public’s interest in and support for science and scientists is waning
2. Scientists have retreated from the public debate alarmingly
3. Rising public scepticism about the benefits of scientific and technological innovation: they are sceptical about decisions made on their behalf about scientific developments - decisions they believe will be influenced by economic and political interests
4. Distrust and scepticism about science are not necessarily unjustified
5. Diminishing conviction that scientific progress is not coterminous with social progress

Science communicators should dedicate themselves primarily to the concept of dialogue

“ Science can no longer be separated from society, culture and economy…”
Michael Gibbons, 2001

“Science is involved in a political battle for its future. Science has to engage with how it is governed and for whom it is accountable in a way it has never done before”
Charles Leadbeater (2000)

“It is the public that now sets the agenda, demanding openness, accountability and access, and the scientists who must respond.”
House of Lords (2000)

“ Accountability should be sought through participation, openness and a willingness to listen, not the price mechanism or the iron cage of bureaucratic audit.’
David Marquand, 2001

1. Anderson, L., Towards a democratic science, Talk given at the 28 th Congress of the Science Society of Thailand, 24 October 2002
2. D’Andrea, L.,& Declich,A., The sociological nature of science communication, JCOM 4 (2) June 2005
3. Dickson, D., The case for a “deficit model” of science communication, editorial at SciDev http://www.scidev.net/content/editorials/eng/the-case-for-a-deficit-model-of-science-communication..cfm
4. Gregory, J. & Miller, S., A protocol for science communication, Sept. 2004
5. Lévy-Leblond, J.M., Cultiver la science, Journal of Science Communication , JCOM 4 (2) June 2005
6. Lewenstein, B.V., Models of public communication of science and technology, June 2003
7. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) , Open Channels, Public dialogue in science and technology, Report N°153, March 2001 http://www.parliament.uk/post/pr153.pdf
8. European Federation of Biotechnology, Who should communicate with the public and how?, Report of a Task Group on Public Perceptions of Biotechnology, funded by the Research Directorate of the European Commission, 2004 http://www.efbpublic.org
9. Sanit, N., Why we need more thought, JCOM 4 (2) June 2995
10. Sturgis, P., & Allum, N., Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes, Sage Publications (www.sagepublications.com), Public Undersstand.Sci.13 (2004)55-74