The report raises the question of the nature and the possibility of the norms of public science communication involving scientists (experts), as well as the public and powerful political actors. The nature of these norms is problematic because the interaction involves various actors who unite in more or less organized communities with different 61 possibilities of social effect. Each of these communities has its own rules and the relationship of these rules with practices. The set of rules in each case is interpreted as a separate “form of life” (L. Wittgenstein), the connection of which with another form is difficult, especially when it comes to the “form of life” of the scientific community, which has “tacit knowledge” hidden for understanding from the outside (M. Polani). Accordingly, an alternative arises. On the one hand, the norms of public communication represent the spread and / or imposition of the rules of one of the communities on another. On the other hand, one should only talk about the practices of public communication, the rules or norms of which cannot be described and prescribed. Perhaps there is no way out of this alternative. However, sharpening this alternative is a step towards looking for the way out.