EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  Science Centres can be an excellent investment in public awareness of science and its importance to the economy. In particular astronomy and space themes inspire and bring out the link between pure science (what PPARC (RIP) called Physics of the Universe) and commercial technologies, However, in some cases, funding is used badly due to arrogance and condescension of management toward scientists—both external experts and in-house senior staff and part-time presenters—at all levels. This leads in some cases toward finance- driven dumbed-down "science" entertainment. While there is a place for this, it is not necessarily appropriate for funding by government bodies. Such funding should come with stricter and more open monitoring procedures closely involving science staff involved. The instances given here as examples have deliberately been made non-specific as I am seeking, at this stage, to make the Select Committee aware of an important general issue.

COMMENTS

1.  Context

  In my role as Astronomer Royal I have been widely involved in physical science—especially astronomy—outreach both as a presenter to the public, schools, societies etc, and in advising Science Centres and Museums on astronomy exhibition and on planetarium show content and equipment. In particular I did the opening shows at the Glasgow GSC, Birmingham ThinkTank, and Newcastle Centre for Life Planetaria, was on the equipment advisory panel and manager appointing committee for GSC planetarium, and from 2004-06 was Project Astronomer for the National Maritime Museum (NMM) ROG Time and Space Project.

2.  Managerial Attitude to Science and Scientists

  The main point I wish to make concerning my experiences is that in some of these centres I found myself deeply concerned over the managerial attitude to science, to staff scientists, and to their views and advice. Some were excellent, with very good rapport between all levels of management and all levels of scientist—from leading personnel to hourly paid presenters—but in others I found that:

(a)  Attitude to Science

  Input on science content and presentation from experts was sought but in the end seemed to be rubber stamping for appearances not for serious consideration. Decisions on science content were often based on financial/managerial issues, on whims of managers, and on ill-founded audience surveys plus "independent consultations" with remits centred on "bums on seats" and dumbing down or on supporting a managerial agenda. Of course, managerial and financial considerations are crucial in running any organisation. However, in this case decoupling them from science advice results in major waste of resources, intended to boost UK science awareness, on dumbed down entertainment.

(b)  Attitude to Science Staff and Advice

  Scientific staff members, from the most senior down to part-time presenters, tend to be regarded as low-life, compared to administration and management personnel, with little or no representation or consultation in major decisions. They tend also to be seen as first in line for being dispensed with when times are hard and to be fair game for intimidation and disciplinary action for not towing management lines.

(c)  Attitude to the public

  All of the above reflects a contempt for the intelligence of the British public—one also commonly found in our press—which is a key element in the growing national crisis over the supply of well trained young scientists.

(d)  Specific Instances

  Several years ago at one centre there was a financially-driven management purge of science staff, including some of their best, with around 17 of them given very short notice and some bodily removed from the building. At the time management held science personnel in very low esteem. The unfairness and the loss of talent led to protests to the Trustees from myself and others which, I like to think, contributed to the subsequent departure of the CEO. This was followed by a new CEO appointment, much more open to science input, which has led to nuch better general morale and aethos. More recently, at a major new centre, 4 of the 5 senior people with real astronomy expertise resigned within 18 months. In at least three cases (including myself) this was driven by the kinds of concern I have expressed above.

June 2007