1.  INTRODUCTION

  I write urging the Committee to recommend financial support for the English science centres. This includes both capital and operating support, but especially operating support, as it is somewhat easier for them to raise capital funding from other sources.

2.  CREDENTIALS AND MOTIVE

  My credentials and motive for taking such a step: I was employed in several science centres in Canada, the USA and Europe since 1969, and have been a consultant to science centres for the last fifteen years or so, on four continents. I worked extensively on three Millennium Science Centres—the Glasgow Science Centre, Sensation in Dundee and the International Centre for Life in Newcastle, and have worked to a lesser degree on At-Bristol and Techniquest in Cardiff. I wrote three reports on science centre finances for the UK government in 2002-03. I know well of the power of science centres to forward the interest and education of children in science and technology.

3.  EDUCATIONAL GOALS

  Science centres (here including "discovery centres") are fundamentally educational institutions. They often use an entertaining style to attract visitors and hold attention, but always with an educational goal. Not all the Millennium centres have this primarily educational structure—Dynamic Earth in Edinburgh is essentially an "attraction," like a profit-making theme park, and education is secondary. The International Centre for Life started with much of its offer in an "attraction" mode, but it has nearly finished re-working all its content to a fully educational mode.

4.  INFORMAL LEARNING AND INTERACTIVITY

  Science centres belong to the informal learning sector. For the general public, the centres present science and technology in as interesting ways as they can devise, and permit the learners to choose the things they will learn, and the way they will approach learning. Visitors—especially children—learn as their interests guide them.

  Science centres are above all characterised by interactive learning—the visitors conduct the experiments and explore phenomena interactively. In this way, science centres can and do complement schools superbly, for schools are often unable to offer the same interactive experiences, nor do many elementary teachers have the science background and skills to teach interactively. And for almost all children, doing is the best way of learning. A motto of the science centre world is, "I see and I forget; I hear and I remember; I do and I understand." Another is, "Hands on—minds on."

5.  SCIENCE CENTRES AND SCHOOLS

  There are more than 400 science centres worldwide, at least half in the USA. In general, about 20% of visitors are students in school groups—about 80% of these from primary schools—millions yearly. Most of the rest of the attendance is family groups with children. Where science centres are well established, the primary teachers are usually very reliant on them to support their teaching efforts. Many science centres run special courses to help the non-science trained teachers (ie most elementary teachers) to teach science with hands-on techniques. In the USA, the National Science Foundation, National Institute for Health and Department of Education (all US Government bodies) give extensive funding to science centres for teacher education.

6.  INSPIRATION ROLE

  Science centres offer much scope for cognitive learning, but their chief direct education function is affective—inspiring interest by interaction with real things and real processes. Their most important product is a fascinated child who has, by successful interactions with exhibits and programmes, gained confidence in his/her ability to learn and do more, and who continues to learn from other sources.

7.  MEASURING SUCCESS

  If inspiration is the science centres' greatest strength, it is also a weakness, for inspiration is hard to measure—it requires longitudinal studies, such as one now going on in southern California. The best measure commonly available for educational impact is the number of school children brought in by the schools. In cities with strong science centres, the centre may see most of the elementary school children over a year or two—depending on capacity. Funds for transport are often the limiting factor.

8.  NORMAL FUNDING NEEDS OF SCIENCE CENTRES

  The Millennium Commission took little or no account of the support needs of the centres they funded, despite attempts by a number of people (including the writer) to inform them better. They required the planners to demonstrate future self-sufficiency. But, even a large and well-run centre with a rich programme in a favourable location can seldom earn more than 70% of its cost of operation[4], and with any disadvantage of size or setting, 70% can hardly be achieved.

9.  POTENTIAL OF THE ENGLISH SCIENCE CENTRES

  The new English Millennium science centres have in general been operating in very reduced circumstances since opening. They have therefore not been able to develop the full, rich programming that would best support the formal education sector and inspire the new generation of scientists. But, given proper support, they surely have the skills and ability to do so—and indeed, would do so. It is greatly in the interests of the nation, that they should have that opportunity.

  10.  I am sending separately a copy of a report prepared for the Department of Trade and Industry in 2002 (office of Science and Technology, Dr Barbara Knowles), which details much of these things, and is still valid. The large appendices are omitted. I send also a copy of my CV to establish my credibility in these matters.

June 2007