Between popularization and engagement : Possible roles of the Ruđer Bošković Institute in science communication

The need to communicate science has always existed. Through time and the changes of the protagonists of science in the public, from scientists-politicians, via scientists-popularisers, to science-communicators (Bauer, 2011), the realisation of science communication went through many changes. The publics for science have also changed. In the past, the audience for science shared the optimism and enthusiasm for science with scientists. Today, the audience is split into several different audiences. They share a similar latent interest for and more reserved expectations from science and technology and their applications (e.g. Eurobarometer, 2010, Eurobarometer, 2005). More critical science journalists appeared, who do not simply mediate the priorities and attitudes of scientific community. Nevertheless, the journalists and scientists still have a 'shared culture' and cooperate in communication with the audiences. In this paper, I will discuss different models of science communication, from continuum to participation. I will show how the science-public relationship evolved and how the new paradigm has taken place, although the science-public relationship is still conceptualised, even among young scientists, mainly according to the often criticised 'deficit' model preumptions (Miller et al., 2009). I will also discuss the context of science communication today,with the emphasis on the differences between European Union average and Croatia. Finally, I will argue that science today should be more communicated than popularized and that genuine communication is also the task of scientific institutions such as the Ruđer Bošković Instutute.