Public communication of science and the nuclear debate in Brazil: The risk communication links between public and government

The events in Japan (March, 2011) revived the controversy surrounding the adoption of nuclear energy on a global scale. With it, returns to the main stage the discussion about the limits and possibilities, risks and benefits and the transformations that technology brings to contemporary society. Thus, the controversy and the discussion about technological risks spread over and Brazil was not out, putting in review its nuclear program in terms of cost, technology and environmental impact. For authors like Rangel (2009), "society incessantly produces new risks, determine values assign and want to take risks. Seeks to control the risks, creates and commercializes control technologies. The State is responsible for regulating relations around the risks". Concerned about the Brazilian context, we want to link scientific policy and communication policy adopted by government to administer an insecurity that came back around the national energetic policy, not only by society, but in the political discourse. We intent to explore the interface between risk communication and public communication of science into this context, by a descriptive-exploratory methodology, based primarily on literature review, analysis of newspaper articles published about the subject by “Agency Brazil”, a government Brazil's communication company and through interviews with relevant actors as journalists, politicians and others working in the area to map the scenario, the communication strategies and answer questions as: what model of communication seems to prevail when the goal is to communicate issues about the nuclear theme for the non-specialized public? How have acted different actors (society, media, scientists and governors) in this discussion and deconstruction of the concept of risk? How knowledge is produced through this channel? This analysis is supported by authors such as Kasperson (2005), Bradbury (1989), Covello, V. & Sandman (2001), Major & Atwood (2004), Wynne (2005), Lewenstein (1993), Jasanoff et al. (1995).