Distant disciplinary interactions between artists, scientists and technologists have been a topic of interest. However, systematic knowledge on how diverse collaborative structures form and function is limited. The current study seeks to address this gap by investigating the social ecology of collaboration between artists, scientists and technologists engaged in inter/transdisciplinary (ITD) creative and cultural practice. The study explores the collaborative experiences of 42 participants with the use of Q-methodology. From the data, five thematic narratives emerge. Three narratives reveal collaborative styles grounded in embodiment and experimentation, fostering cultures and methods suited to co-creating ITD knowledge marked by uncertainty and serendipity. A fourth narrative highlights how artworks critically engage with science and technology, while a fifth, bipolar theme captures conflicting views on the mediated ‘third space’ in art–science–technology collaborations. This research reveals the influence of art on ITD research and science domains through creative collaborations. The findings support the development of transformative structural models for designing and facilitating collaborations across distant disciplinary knowledge cultures.

The 2018 ‘gene-edited babies incident’ in China catalysed intense global debate, highlighting the critical need to understand public discourse surrounding major techno-ethical controversies. This study investigates the characteristics of Chinese public discourse in response to this event by analysing 3692 comments from the social-media platform Weibo. Employing a mixed-methods approach combining latent Dirichlet allocation topic clustering and grounded theory, the research reveals a hierarchical thematic structure in public discussions. Such discussions are categorized into three types of discourse: (1) event-specific discourse, focusing on the incident itself, the individuals involved, subjects’ rights, the experimenter's ethics and the immediate ethical risks of the technology; (2) societal-context discourse, extending to broader societal issues reflected by the event, including techno-governance, the rule of law, international competition, science communication and popular-science education; and (3) future-oriented discourse, which adopted a macro-perspective to explore the necessity and historicity of technological development and its relationship with ethical constraints. While demonstrating diverse engagement, the analysis also identified prevalent issues in public cognition, such as superficial scientific understanding, pronounced emotional responses and a reliance on monolithic cultural logics. These findings underscore the importance of strengthening research on public techno-ethical cognition. The study advocates for the integration of public perspectives into techno-ethical governance frameworks to complement elite, unidirectional communication, thereby enhancing the inclusiveness, responsiveness and practical effectiveness of science governance in the face of rapid technological advances.

‘Open science’ is a term that remains under constant discussion. Based on 29 semi-structured interviews with researchers from the natural sciences working in Brazil, France and Peru, this paper discusses the different meanings and values associated with open science. The different imaginaries concerning open science can be organized into three main categories: open science as research outputs, as embedded in the research process, and as related to the science–society relationship, the latter being more common in the two South American countries in this study. Openness, freedom and democracy are values commonly associated with this concept. In addition, Mertonian values such as universalism and organized skepticism are highlighted, although with nuanced variations due to open science practices.

The Science Park ( Parque de las Ciencias ) in Granada, Spain, has been host to various exhibitions of differing sizes—ranging from small exhibits to an entire pavilion—about the history of Arab–Islamic science, with a particular focus on the scientific thought and its development in Al-Andalus (or medieval ‘Muslim Spain’). This transnational scientific legacy is not often featured in science museum content around the world, despite its foundational role in the development of European sciences. For example, the Pavilion of Al-Andalus and Science, which was open from 2008 to 2016, allowed for a clear analysis of not only the universalist discourse of the sciences but also the transnational, supranational, regional and localized representations of scientific knowledge, paradigms and processes. To explore the distinctions between these framings, I review the organizational objectives of the pavilion's creator, the Fundación El Legado Andalusí , and the content of the Museum of Al-Andalus and the Sciences located on the second floor of the pavilion. The analysis focuses on several key aspects: the balance between the number of Andalusi scholars and the other Arab thinkers mentioned; the references to multiple geopolitical frames; the ways in which Andalusi scientific knowledge and contributions are interwoven into the wider Arab–Islamic history of science; and the centring of local and regional knowledge, practices, styles and techniques. The conclusions of the study are two-fold: (1) a transnational history of science can (a) reinforce a universalist discourse of science, while simultaneously (b) engaging a framework in which this scientific content and legacy can be localized; and (2) scientific knowledge and practice, like science communication, are invariably affected by other dominant forces when social, cultural and political factors beyond the realm of science are involved in the production and representation of science.

This article examines the creation, operation and eventual closure of TECNO-ITINTEC, which was South America's first interactive science museum. Established in Peru in 1979 under the Institute of Industrial Technology Research and Technical Standards (ITINTEC), the museum was a direct response to global trends in science communication that promoted science education through experimentation and hands-on experiences in science centers. Although it functioned as a science center, its founders called it an ‘interactive science museum’ to signal its role as an educational authority and to align it with the state-led vision of national development. The Peruvian scientists who founded the museum viewed science centers as apolitical, modern institutions for educating future generations, which coincided with the military regime's goals of industrial modernization and national development. When the military regime ended, the museum's founders ensured its continued operation by aligning with the developmental ideals of the Belaúnde government (1980−1985). Later, during the García administration (1985−1990), the museum navigated economic challenges by reducing its budget and relying on the resourcefulness of its staff. However, the museum ultimately failed to survive the liquidation of its parent institution under Fujimori's neoliberal reforms that withdrew public support for scientific and technological research. This process of bureaucratic dismantling led to the museum's closure and the transfer of its exhibitions to a deteriorating storage space at the Lima Zoo, where the exhibits were left in neglect. This study explores how museums succeed or fail within their sociopolitical environments, drawing from various primary sources, including newspaper articles, legal documents, institutional reports and interviews with former staff and founders. Rather than evaluating the museum solely on its educational or popular success, the study examines the broader political, economic and institutional forces that shaped its rise and demise, offering critical insights for the study of science museums in Latin America and beyond.

This paper draws on my two years of experience as curator in the making of the exhibition ‘Wonderful Instruments from Overseas: The Western Technological World in the Eyes of Late Qing Intellectuals’ held at the Tsinghua University Science Museum, Beijing, China (from March 2024 to March 2025). The project was an attempt to reinterpret and recontextualize historical scientific objects, highlighting how they were perceived and represented by the late Qing intellectuals across different times and places. Emphasizing object-oriented and decentred historical narratives, the exhibition highlights the contributions of often-overlooked groups in the history of science. Furthermore, it demonstrates that science museums in the Chinese context can offer a more inclusive and multifaceted view of history.

This article engages with the role of museums in contemporary science communication. It traces two current communication strategies in museums: factivism and activism. It is argued that we need to go beyond both strands in order to be open to the dilemmas and paradoxes in the relations between science, public life and decision-making.

This article revisits the concept of epistemological rupture by questioning the stark division between scientific and non-scientific thought. Drawing on the theory of representation, it contends that both forms of knowledge are socially constructed, moulded by communication, norms and group dynamics. Rather than labelling non-scientific thought as flawed or regressive, the discussion shows how decontextualization and recontextualization processes apply equally to everyday ‘natural’ knowledge and formal science, exposing the social and historical contingencies shaping concepts. Consequently, rupture appears less a sudden break than a gradual threshold reached through dialectical transformations in cognition and society. Rather than conferring total superiority on science, ruptures highlight how certain discourses gain legitimacy while others become ‘non-knowledge’. The article concludes that science's dominance reflects broader power relationships and evolving modes of production and validation. By situating epistemological rupture within these processes, it illuminates how different knowledge forms coexist, evolve and sometimes conflict in stratified social fields—ultimately challenging a simplistic binary between scientific progress and supposedly primitive or natural thought. This viewpoint opens new possibilities for examining the shifting boundaries between rational explanations and the shared beliefs shaping collective reality and daily life.