In recent decades there has been growing proclamations in favour of more and better knowledge of the public about the scientific issues (UNESCO 1983; European Parliament and Council of the European Union 2006). Such claims were accompanied by vigorous recommendations so that teaching to renew, gain the best results and reach a greater number of young people.

In fact, in contemporary societies, the unceasing and pervasive techno-scientific innovation has changed the social demand for science education: currently it is not just about the formation specialized individuals for the technical and scientific professions or research, but aims at spreading a science for citizen. The challenge is to make most people able to detect and understand the impact of science and technology in everyday life, to think critically and be able to make informed decisions. Moreover, the sequence of events (such as the occurrence of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or the Fukushima nuclear disaster) with respect to which science has not provided advanced warning or decisive solutions,  have stimulated considerable interest in the issues of public participation in fields traditionally dominated by the expertise of the scientists.

The present work provides an analysis of the objectives, methods and results of Scienza Attiva^®, an innovative experience conducted in Italy in upper secondary school. This project, designed and conducted by the Inter-University Centre Agora Scienza, announces a program aimed at engage students in the discussion of scientific current topics characterized by a strong social relevance. The project takes place in a physical space — constituted by the classrooms — and in a virtual space — the website www.scienzattiva.eu. It consists of a sequence of steps. At the first, students analyze a series of documents especially drawn up by a panel of scientists and downloaded from the website. Secondly they dialogue with scientists, by online exchange of questions and answers. Later this phase of training / information, students through a process of deliberative participation (consensus conference) develop proposals and scenarios that deliver to scientists and representatives of public institutions.

Scienza Attiva^®  addresses issues related to the guys’ interests in a multidisciplinary perspective in which science and technology are faced with social and ethical issues; promotes cooperative learning; puts emphasis on teacher as mediator and reflective practitioner; provides opportunities for debate and discussion among peers; stimulates an open and constructive dialogue between students and scientists; urges consideration of controversial issues identifying possible solutions and future scenarios through deliberative processes. The most recent edition of Scienza Attiva^® involvedover 4,200 students, 250 teachers and 48 scientists on the following issues: "stem cells", "nanotechnology", "energy".

Interest in the project is evidenced by the growing number of schools that every year participate in the initiative, as well as by international prizes awarded (winner project  of  “Engage U Award” and of the first Call for Participants launched by STENCIL – The Science Teaching European Network for Creativity and Innovation Learning). Of course, it also presents some criticalities, well expressed by the following questions: the goals of experiences of deliberative democracy are actually achievable in school and with an audience of students? Beyond the critical aspects, from the analysis of Scienza Attiva^®  project emerges however the important contribution that  the introduction of participatory and deliberative exercises can play in the renewal of science education curriculum.

Andersen I-E and Jæger B (1999) Scenario Workshops and Consensus Conferences: Towards more-making. Science and Public Policy, 26, 5: 331–340. Aikenhead GS (2002) Renegotiating the Culture of School Science: Scientific Literacy for an Informed Public, paper presented to Lisbon’s School of Science Conference, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal, May 17. Bennett J, Lubben F and Hogarth S (2007) Bringing Science to Life: A Synthesis of the Research Evidence on the Effects of Context-Based and STS Approaches to Science Teaching. Science Education, 91: 347–370. Bingle WH and Gaskell PJ (1994) Scientific Literacy for Decision Making and the Social Constructionof Scientific Knowledge. Science Education, 72:185–201. Davis KS (2003) “Change is Hard”: What Science Teachers are Telling us About Reform and Teacher Learning of Innovative Practices. Science Education, 87, 1: 3–30. Diekers M and von Grote C (eds) (2005) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology. London and New York: Routdlege, pp. 291–305. Dryzek JS (2000) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Liberals, Critics, Contestations. New York: OUP. Dunkerley D and Glasner P (1998) Empowering the Public? Citizens’ Juries and the New Genetic Technologies. Critical Public Health, 8:181–92. Goven J (2003) Deploying the Consensus Conference in New Zealand: Democracy and De-problematization. Public Understanding of Science, 12: 423–440. Habermas J. (1997) The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1 Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Hansen J, Holm L, Frewer L, Robinson P and Sandøe P (2003) Beyond the Knowledge Deficit: Recent Research into Lay and Expert Attitudes to Food Risks. Appetite, 41(2):111–121. Hilgartner S (1990) The Dominant View of Popularization. Social Studies of Science, XX: 519–539. Horlick-Jones T, Walls J, Rowe G, Pidgeon N, Poortinga W, Murdock G (2007) The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement. London: Routledge. Irwin A (2001) Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 1–18. Irwin A (2006) The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the ‘New’ Scientific Governance. Social Studies of Science 36(2): 299–320. Jasonoff S (2004) Science and citizenship: a New Synergy. Science and Public Policy, 31, 2: 90–94. Jenkins E (1999) School Science, Citizenship and the Public Understanding of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21: 703–710.