The purpose of this paper is to explain what the“ third wave” of science studies is. First, I will explain the scheme of the three waves of science studies. Next, one of the main components of the “third wave,” “expertise studies,” will be introduced with examples to show what lessons it can bring to us. Then, another main component of the “third wave,” “elective modernism,” will be discussed, using concepts such as the “formative aspiration” of the scientific community to explain why we should choose science as our standard of knowledge. Finally, how science should be positioned in relation to democracy in our society is discussed, and a new expert advisory system called “the Owls” is described.

　It is confirmed through analysis of practices of various examples such as the Food Safety Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Authority, the Expert Group on Countermeasures against Novel Coronavirus

Infections, and the Subcommittee on Countermeasures against Novel Coronavirus that the political roles played by experts in the policy process related to science and technology are diverse and that such roles have limitations. In order to ensure the appropriate discretion at the expert level, it is pointed out that mutual communication among the experts in different disciplines participating in the decision-making process, the securing inputs from stakeholders in society are important, and that connecting coordination at the expert level with coordination at the political level is indispensable when there are limitations of wider cross-sectoral coordination at the expert level.

　Theorists and practitioners of science communication have argued for the need for distancing ourselves from the deficit model. However, the concept of the deficit model itself has been a source of confusion in science communication theory and practice. Therefore, in this paper, I replace the deficit model with a combined vertical–horizontal model.

　The vertical model represents the attitude that science, which many scientists recognize as their culture, is the only natural and rational point of reference. In contrast, the horizontal model also includes the culture of the communities with which scientists communicate as a valid component of the communication style.

　However, the implementation of the horizontal model alone may result in excessive relativization of scientific values. Therefore, based on the argument of elective modernism developed by Collins and Evans, I argue that the horizontal model does not necessarily lead to such relativization. Finally, using Collins and Evans’s theory of expertise and the combined vertical–horizontal model, I determine eight types of science communicators.

　Advances in assisted reproductive technology (ART) have intertwined economic disparity and institutional differences among countries, generating a global reproductive market. Infertile couples and individuals, or gamete providers and gestational carriers, cross a border for reproductive services. The Czech Republic is one of the hubs of this phenomenon, “cross-border reproductive services (CBRS),” in today’s Europe.

　This article attempts to further the empirical understanding of CBRS in Czechia by analyzing institutional factors such as (1) the regulatory framework, (2) access to reproductive medicine, and (3) the cost of reproductive services. In conclusion, this research elucidates that (1) laws and professional guidelines are not so strict that various reproductive technologies like surrogacy are not prohibited, (2) accessibility of reproductive medicine is high enough, and (3) the cost of reproductive services is relatively low for infertile couples from Western Europe and the rewards is substantial for surrogates from Eastern Europe. The interaction among three factors makes the Czech Republic a host country of CBRS, to which clients and surrogates cross a border respectively from Western Europe and Eastern Europe.

　This article examines how and why the colorization of figures in life science journals has progressed since the 1970s and considers the related issues to be addressed. Focusing on one international peer reviewed journal in life sciences, Cell, which was founded in 1974, we sampled 20 research articles of issues published every five years and analyzed when and how the colorization of graphics progressed.

　As a result of analyzing whether the figures were in color or grayscale, it was found that while most of the graphics in the 70s and 80s were grayscale, the number of color graphics began to increase from the 1990s and it exceeded that of grayscale graphics in the 2000s. Through the analysis of the graphics, it is suggested that digitization, changes in the experimental technologies and the production technologies of images, the increasing complexity of data, and internal factors of researchers have enhanced these changes.

　To promote the understanding and appropriate interpretation of images in academic journals, it is proposed to provide education on the visual design and literacy of academic images for researchers, establish standards on color usage, take measures to prevent malicious misleading by colors, and examine the cost for color figures.

　This paper explores the theoretical and practical relevance of “neurorights,” an umbrella term to denote human rights to address the purported threats of emerging neuroscience and neurotechnology.Skeptics claim that “neurorights” is a redundant neologism, nothing more than a natural corollary of the existing human rights. The primary purpose of this paper is to revisit this skepticism and see the relevance of neurorights. First, some worries behind the advocates of neurorights include the apparent effect of deep brain stimulation on one’s personality. Since empirical observations do not always support this kind of potential threat, an overemphasis on this kind of potential threat would lead to unreasonable hype. However, it is invaluable to anticipate the impacts of emerging neurotechnology in a forwardlooking manner, which aligns with responsible research and innovation (RRI). Second, the recent call for neurorights has come into the picture in the context of the rapid emergence of neuroscience and its application worldwide, accompanied by a lacuna of effective regulatory schemes in this field. The notion of neurorights, thanks to its uncontroversial and clichéd nature, can serve as the first stepping stone to achieving any further productive agreement about worldwide governance on emerging neuroscience.

　 In the diverse and complex conditions for knowledge production in modern society, the academia is called upon to engage with various stakeholders in the society. Previous trend in open innovation, which aids in efficiently enhancing R&D activities, catered more on industry however it is currently acknowledged as a wider-ranging activity with engagement from academia. Furthermore, the engagement with academia have progressed on to establish cooperation with civilians and patients in the society in dealing with environmental and medical issues, and not only limited to industry. The key in developing relationships between academia and various stakeholders is establishing co-creation in order to sustain continued cooperation and the journey has just begun. This paper seeks to summarize the focal points of establishing co-creation with academia, the issues faced and promotion strategy from the operational level.