This guide, published by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), was a result of a project designed to build capacity for science communication at the Vietnamese Academy of Social Science. It draws on international good practice and discusses how three tools — the policy brief, the research brief and the story of change — can be used to communicate research through print media. The guide presents case-studies that illustrate policy processes in Vietnam; describes the principles and process of communication, and offers advice on how to write effectively and how to develop policy briefs. The guide is presented as a 'working document' that will be revised to incorporate users' views, and stresses that practice is the best way to improve writing skills.

This paper discusses how researchers promote the use of research in policy by examining the practices of 'boundary organisations' that cross the boundary between science and politics to facilitate evidence-based policies and programmes. It identifies key lessons for organisations looking to engage policymakers and decision-makers.

The study focuses on the Regional Network on AIDS, Livelihoods and Food Security (RENEWAL), a regional 'network of networks' active in Kenya, South Africa, Uganda, and Zambia which engages government officials on programmes that could inform policies on food, nutrition and HIV/AIDS. It describes the challenges and successes of efforts to promote research in these areas; challenges include adherence to scientific principles while maintaining close relationships with political authority, and ensuring accountability to the communities within which the research is conducted.

The paper offers recommendations to strengthen efforts to get research into policy, and concludes that the concept of a boundary organisation can help researchers engage people and processes that have decision-making power.

This report, written by Japan's Council for Science and Technology Policy, provides recommendations to Japanese ministries for promoting science and technology diplomacy. Suggestions include pursuing research collaborations with developing countries and boosting capacity building efforts in these nations, fostering young researchers and engaging with global collaborative science projects.

In this Nature article, three members of the Royal Society call for an advisory group and a network of international laboratories to lay the groundwork for nuclear disarmament and international collaboration. Scientific collaboration has already helped nuclear negotiations, say the authors. But now, the technology needed to support disarmament must be developed.

This report summarises the evidence and main conclusions from a two-day meeting on science diplomacy, hosted by the Royal Society in partnership with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in June 2009.

The report explains the 'three dimensions of science diplomacy' and explores topics such as the soft power of science and practical barriers to scientific exchange. It also presents two case studies of science diplomacy, including how large science collaborations are being used to improve relations with the Islamic world.

In this Science article, US-based scientists Kristin M. Lord and Vaughan C. Turekian argue that science diplomacy is critical to US efforts to build positive relationships with foreign societies. They outline roles for US scientists to play — from acting as goodwill ambassadors to collaborating with colleagues overseas. And they highlight the importance of nongovernmental scientific organisations as conduits to foreign societies.

Writing in Cell, Nina Fedoroff, science and technology advisor to the US Secretary of State, calls on all US scientists and engineers to build partnerships with developing countries and improve the economic and educational opportunities within these nations. Scientists have a pivotal role to play in decreasing the disparities between rich and poor, she says.

This report, published by the Center for International Development at Harvard University and the International Livestock Research Institute in Kenya, asks which institutions and approaches are most effective in using scientific knowledge to inform development strategies.

The authors evaluate five agricultural projects in Africa and Asia and suggest that the best strategies for closing the gaps between knowledge and action include: 'boundary-spanning' efforts such as creating partnerships to improve dialogue between researchers and local communities; 'use-driven' research directed at solving particular problems for particular groups of people; engaging stakeholders from the outset of a project; providing incentives for risk-taking; and improving project management and communication skills.

The way discussions about biotechnology are framed is also dealt with, concluding that innovative, new techniques are required to create a rational dialogue with the public.

This is a thorough and in-depth analysis of the link between media coverage of science stories and the public understanding of science. The 56-page document was prepared for the UK Economic and Social Sciences Research Council by British media experts Ian Hargreaves and Justin Lewis, with the support of PhD student Tammy Spears.

The study, published in 2002, was based on data collected from a seven-month media analysis of over 2,000 science stories from radio, television and the press, and two nationwide surveys. It focuses on climate change, the MMR vaccine and cloning/genetic research.

Key findings include:

• there is a clear link between media coverage and the way people understand science
• only the broad patterns of coverage (whether a story or one side of a controversy receives more or less media attention than another) inform opinions;
• the presence of more scientists in the media does not appear to increase public understanding of science issues; and
• a clear and consistent narrative behind an issue helps generate public engagement.

This study continues the work that Hargreaves began in his 2000 report Who's Misunderstanding Whom? in which he discusses the idea of 'dialogue' with the public regarding science, and the possibility of enforcing a code of practice for science journalists.

The South African press has often been criticised for its lack of science and technology coverage. This is the report of a study which aimed to determine how and to what degree science and technology were reported in a representative sample of the South African press.

The study surveyed the amount of science coverage in 15 South African publications over three months in 2002. Around 1000 science and technology articles were sampled and studied for profiles of the science reporters, tone of reporting, use of visuals, prominence of coverage and of controversies, and the nature of the reported science.

There were a number of key findings:

• under 2 per cent of the editorial content studied was dedicated to science and technology;
• a large number of science articles came from foreign sources, including foreign publications and wire services;
• on average, each of the 15 publications had two science correspondents, although this varied greatly according to the type of publication, and none of the regional publications had dedicated science reporters;
• overall, the tone of reporting was positive, with 42 per cent of the articles appearing to promote the benefits of science;
• contrary to expectations, the majority of science articles did not deal with controversy;
• together, biomedicine, astronomy, HIV/AIDS and technology constituted the majority of coverage (although Mark Shuttleworth's visit to the International Space Station during the sampling period no doubt boosted astronomy ratings).

The report concludes with a recommendation to repeat the study at regular intervals and over longer periods.

The US National Association of Science Writers has produced this guidance communicating science news. It introduces the different types of media and their different journalistic techniques; the role of the public information officers in creating science news; the dos and don'ts of media arrangements and some of the pitfalls in reporting science news that can generate misunderstanding and tension between science writers, scientists and public information officers.