Progress can no longer be the narrative legitimizing the scientific enterprise. (Lyotard, 1979) As we have witnessed in the last two decades, there is an increasing discontent against science among the public. The emergence of new techno/bio-sciences of the living along with alarming environmental concerns contributed to the generation of this social context. This “crisis of trust” was heavily mediatised in the House of the Lord’s Science and Society report (2000). It is said that "science’s ‘licence to practice’" can no longer be taken for granted” (Elam and Bertilsson, 2003, p. 234). The fear of science’s impact on society was also witnessed in panels for the UNESCO’s agenda for science. In fact, the relationship between science and society is in a critical phase.

Actors in the field of science education are all solicited to intervene. However, the monological model of science education appears to be inadequate to the task. In the field of science communication, the traditional answer for “social acceptance of science” was education. The “deficit model” emphasized the effectiveness of knowledge transmission, from the expert to the lay public. (Locke, 2002) This perspective was recently challenged in Euro-barometer study. Kallerud and Ramberg’s research on public attitudes towards science in Norway demonstrated that those who were most critical of science were the groups that had a ‘higher level’ of scientific literacy. In sum, the “public engagement in science” and “scientific citizenship” are elements of the new science communication landscape (Elam and Bertilsson, 2004).

Amongst the institutions in the field of science communication, the third generation science centre achieved the goal of providing an innovative platform for dialogue on science’s impact on society. The third generation science centre is a component of the educational governance of science and a “space” provider for the emergence of a scientific citizenship.