In its October Editorial, Nature Structural & Molecular Biology (16, 1003; 2009) asks researchers if they know how it feels to have 2,500 pairs of eyes watch them work. “Imagine the crowd staring intensely at you as you set up a PCR, admiring your smooth pipetting action and wondering what on earth is so fascinating about the DNA sequence you have in front of you. Hold on, they don’t have to just wonder, they can buzz on the intercom to ask you what you’re doing. That is the daily experience of hundreds of scientists who work at the Natural History Museum in London. It probably takes some getting used to.” The Darwin Centre is pulling in the crowds as the United Kingdom’s latest—and perhaps bravest—approach to communicating science. Researchers are on show as they prepare specimens for analysis, sequence DNA and compare and classify species. Scientists also take turns to give daily talks on their work in the new Attenborough studio.

The Darwin Centre is a fascinating exhibit, but it follows a long trend of efforts to demystify science. This phase of science communication began in the late 1980s with the well-meaning, but sometimes high-handed, approach of trying to teach the public what scientists thought they should know. But through trial and error a more informal and more equal way of talking about science began to dominate, particularly through the Café Scientifique movement – described in more detail in the Editorial.

The Editorial concludes that In the tough times ahead, science needs all the support it can get. Without constructive engagement with the public over subjects such as cloning and the use of embryonic stem cells, scientists risk ceding control to special interest groups with political agendas. “Engagement and listening to the public do pay off, and now is the time to prove that not only do we value the intellectual pursuit of science, but we understand its implications for society.”