In contemporary philosophy of science, there is a widespread discussion about metaphors, namely, how to explain the role of metaphors in scientific inquiry. Due to their figurative nature, it was generally believed throughout history that metaphors cannot occupy a role in science. This was especially the case during the time of seventeenth century empiricism (when philosophers such as Hobbes and Locke decisively rejected metaphors) and logical positivism in the first half of the twentieth century. However, in the middle of the twentieth century, there was a turning point in the discussion. Many philosophers began to view metaphors in a positive light, largely thanks to Ivor Richards and Max Black, who advocated an interactionist view of metaphor and presented a new way of thinking about them. Many contemporary philosophers are trying to determine the appropriate role of metaphors in science. For example, Elisabeth Camp defines metaphors as a kind of imaginative frame and argues that they have a significant role at the beginning of scientific research, because their openness to interpretation can direct scientists towards potential hypotheses. Arnon Levy defines the role of metaphors in science based on their relationship to understanding and explanation. Namely, he believes that explanations in science are appropriate as long as they generate understanding, and therefore metaphors can serve as explanations because they can improve our understanding of the research subject. The paper begins by presenting the historical development of the discussion about metaphors, and then moves on to a presentation of two contemporary theories about the role of metaphors in science, one of which was presented by Elisabeth Camp, and the other by Arnon Levy.