"Nature is a manifestation of endless wonder and enchantment. This fascination of the world we live in fuels a scientist’s mind with inspiration and ideas. Natural processes such as lightning and climate changes as well as the grand happening in the world of atoms-energy, charges, attractions-serve a compass to a scientist’s quest to decipher, invent, innovate, discover and rediscover" ( Salita, 2006). Coupled with these inventions, innovations and discoveries are the emerging global challenges which actually demands rapid responses from the scientific community. How do the scientific world address to this? What about the indigenous people of today? A reformation of culture and practice of science must be done to incorporate those global challenges. But why reform? What’s wrong with the current practice of science? And how did the scientific community relate this to the whole world? Probably, the problem comes in there. Different scientific researches were done but only few are being applied in real life. Real life means the everyday living of the small unit in the community which actually comprises the 7 billion people in this world. According to Heiskanen, there should be justifications for public engagement. According to her, it shouldn’t be a one-way street, public understanding should be replaced with “upstream engagement” and a dialogue in science communication. Jamison (2001) added that the professionalism of a particular issue tends to make them joint technocratic project of science, industry and policy-with a very marginal role for the ordinary consumer, employee or citizen. That shouldn’t be the case then. According to Bertilsson (2003), Science is a problematic source of advice for everyday life. It is not an immutable and overtly normative knowledge system but fraught with controversies, new findings and divert interpretations. It also draws as concepts, practices and knowledge claims that are largely unfamil