1.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  1.1  A coherent and "joined-up" relationship between Science and Discovery Centres (SDCs) and government has potential to make a considerable contribution to widening public engagement in science, democratising science and re-building public trust in science associated with government and industry. In time this will support government efforts to grow the UK's knowledge economy and future economic competitiveness.

  1.2  The changing nature of science during the last thirty years demands a different approach to public engagement than that which has been witnessed during this period. The teaching of science in a deficit mode and adopted by the majority of science educators is insufficient in itself to change the public's growing concerns about science.

  1.3  SDCs have the potential to be a major vehicle for slowing and indeed reversing the public's disenfranchisement with science but this can only be achieved with the strategic support of government and other major stakeholders involved in the public engagement debate. SDCs, as one such vehicle, have many advantages as partners to government. These include:

—  their popularity with the UK public in its many forms;

—  the absence of barriers (for the public) that often exist for many in other education establishments eg Higher Education Institutions;

—  non-pressurised environments in which many young people have their first (engaging) experience with science education;

—  their emphasis on informal learning and its complementarity to the more formal methods typically found in schools;

—  their sense of community and place;

—  their relationships with others including schools, local authorities, Universities, industry, local enterprise agencies, various STEM associations eg The British Association for the Advancement of Science (The BA) and others;

—  their reputation as an honest broker in communicating science related issues; and

—  their growing emphasis on contemporary scientific issues, to include global events, controversial science and knowledge transfer.

  1.4  Despite the potential contribution to be made, the SDC sector remains highly vulnerable. The Millennium funded projects in particular were not predicated on sustainable visitor numbers and were always predicted to have required revenue support, which was not forthcoming. The limited financial support now being provided by the devolved political powers in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland is slowly beginning to show what is possible with some (discrete in relation to other government vehicles) financial assistance (more detail provided in the submission by Dr Stuart Monro on behalf of the Scottish Science Centres Network (SSCN)). The absence or uncertainty of continued external funding is a major inhibitor for SDCs in their ability to do even more.

  1.5  The key advantage to having a single main funder (accepting that other regional and local funding relationships will always remain important) would be that funding could be linked to delivery against government policy towards public engagement with science, national policy and careers promotion and in doing so leverage quality across the sector, national programming, national measurement and evaluation of impacts tied to national ambitions.

2.  THE CHANGING NATURE OF SCIENCE AND ITS IMPACT ON PUBLIC TRUST

  2.1  The nature of science has changed considerably during the last 30 years, as every government of a developed and developing country has placed greater emphasis on its knowledge economy. Every Western European country now has the knowledge economy at the forefront of its economic policy and future ambitions for economic growth and competitiveness. The intervention of governments has been the key driver of these changes and brought greater emphasis on commodified outputs from scientific advancement and greater public accountability—an uneasy combination that has led to a growing public dis-ease about science associated with government.

  2.2  The Third Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000) recognised that while the UK public's interest in science was high, science associated with government or industry was viewed negatively by the public and expressed in the form of a lack of trust. The Royal Society report "Public Understanding of Science", (1985) some fifteen years prior to this identified similar concerns, suggesting things have not moved on considerably during the intervening years. The Select Committee Report went as far as to describe the changing relationship with the public as a "crisis of confidence" and highlighted public survey data that identified several strands to this. These included:

—  People now question authority, including scientific authority.

—  There is still a culture of governmental and institutional secrecy in the UK, which invites suspicion.

—  Some issues currently treated by decision-makers as scientific issues in fact involve many other factors besides science. Framing the problem wrongly by excluding moral, social, ethical and other concerns invites hostility.

—  Underlying people's attitudes to science are a variety of values.

  2.3  The report also highlighted a new mood for dialogue in efforts to improve the relationship between science and society. Principal influences on this dialogue included:

—  COPUS.

—  The Research Councils and Higher Education Funding Councils, through which the UK Government funds academic research.

—  Science museums and science centres.

—  The internet.

—  Special initiatives for women.

  2.4  The inclusion of science centres to this inquiry is of some significance and particularly so given their recognition in other government publications including the 2002, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) paper, "Dialogue on Science and Technology" and 2006, POST paper, "Debating Science".

  2.5  While highlighted in these and undoubtedly other government papers, SDCs have typically been paid lip-service only, with little or no discussion about the role SDCs might play in improving public engagement in a science agenda. This may be, in-part, due to a perceived sense that SDCs are children's visitor attractions only. The reality however is that many SDCs are delivering a very credible effort to engage an increasingly wide public audience.

3.  THE NEED FOR BETTER PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

  3.1  While it has been expressed by others in the past that public engagement with science is at something of a crossroads the truth is that this statement has never been truer than now. Considerable research supports the statement that past efforts by government have not been wholly effective in bridging what has been termed the public deficit in support for science. This is partly attributed to by the fact that many methods employed by government continue to rely on the deficit approach to public understanding, one that emphasises teaching science in a top down approach that discourages or at least avoids dialogue and discussion. The changing use in language from Public Understanding of Science (PUS) to Public Engagement in Science (PES) suggests otherwise but this is not typically apparent. There has also been some criticism levied at initiatives that have sought to do just that.

  3.2  In essence there can be no avoiding the fact that the public is becoming more vocal of its concerns associated with science, particularly in areas deemed as controversial science such as the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) debate and use of human stem cells in research. It should also not be overlooked that a better informed public is not necessarily one that is more supportive of any and/or all forms of scientific research.

  3.3  The "crisis of confidence" in public trust must be addressed if there is to be any hope of a reversal in public support for science. The alarming rate of closure of University chemistry, physics and maths departments is one of many signposts that something more effective needs to be done, albeit that the closure of such departments has in part been contributed to by the management, efficiency and control agenda applied by government to the HEI sector in return for funding.

4.  THE CONTRIBUTION OF SCIENCE AND DISCOVERY CENTRES

  4.1  In 2002 UK SDCs attracted over 11 million visitors. These visitors represented all sectors of the UK population. The headline number demonstrates something of the popularity of these venues. While total visitor numbers are likely to have lowered in the subsequent years SDCs have, if anything, become more effective in their efforts to engage their audiences. This is manifest in the range of workshops, programmes and outreach initiatives offered to the commitment to refresh exhibitions being demonstrated in efforts to keep centres credible, relevant and engaging. The social context of science is also becoming increasingly apparent in the work of centres and often driven by public interest.

  4.2  Many of the UK SDCs share a mission that encompasses widening PES, widening access (to all sectors of the community) and inspiring the scientists of tomorrow. Promoting lifelong learning is also becoming increasingly prominent with growing interest in public discussion events.

  4.3  Efforts by UK SDCs to do more in relation to PES have typically been hampered only by the need to at least achieve a financial breakeven. Despite these constraints many centres have built a strong reputation and are increasingly working in partnership with other organisations in efforts to deliver their agenda, including schools, local Universities and national bodies eg Scottish Science Advisory Committee.

  4.4  The educational efforts of UK SDCs should be viewed in the same context as those of the UK museums and galleries sector. The funded nature of many UK museums and galleries recognises their value as cultural venues that promote Britain's rich heritage, while the work of SDCs in promoting the UK's future has yet to be recognised in a similar way.

  4.5  The independent registered status of most UK SDCs, coupled with their typically efficient structures and difficult trading positions has been a constraint for many centres in working more closely with others, including other SDCs. Organisations like ECSITE-UK have delivered many benefits associated with being part of a national network but there is still much work to do.

  4.6  A joined up approach has greater potential to lead to widespread improvement in quality of education activities, afford greater opportunity to both share and benchmark against others and develop robust evaluation methods which demonstrate more clearly the effectiveness of SDC activities. There is no lack of desire for such things but the `lean' status of many means the stronger centres are able to share while the weaker most likely become weaker. This is not to say that funding should prevent market failure where a flawed business model exists but that strategic funding has the potential to address something that has to date not been possible ie a coherent, national approach to public engagement which has the potential to meet much of government policy towards PES.

5.  DUNDEE SCIENCE CENTRE (SENSATION)

  5.1  Sensation is Tayside's Millennium Project. This £5m capital project opened to the public on the 1st July 2000. Initial funders included the Millennium Commission, Wellcome Trust, Dundee City Council, Scottish Enterprise Tayside, the Gannochy Trust and a number of other smaller funders. Since opening this "life-sciences" based science centre has attracted over 400,000 visitors and is currently averaging around 70,000 admissions annually.

  5.2  Sensation is a member of the SSCN (please see submission by Dr Stuart Monro) and has a mission of widening public engagement with a science agenda, widening access and inspiring the scientist of tomorrow. The centre has a rich education programme, which along with the other SSCN members was subject to a Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education (HMIe) inspection in 2006.

  5.3  Sensation views itself as a community resource and one which seeks to meet the needs of its local and regional audience. It does this in a number of ways and has built a reputation for strong delivery. Key areas of focus for Sensation include knowledge-transfer and in this regard the centre has engaged with a wide range of partners in promoting cutting-edge research. Recent partners have included Stirling University, University of Abertay, Dundee, University of Dundee, the Medical Research Council (MRC), Ninewells Hospital Trust, Scottish Crop Research Institute, Deafness Research UK, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC).

  5.4  Sensation is currently developing plans for a Science Learning Centre as none currently exists in Scotland. This is a major initiative and has been supported in its early stages by funding from the Scottish Executive.

6.  CONCLUSIONS

  6.1  SDCs are a key resource in efforts to better promote PES in the UK. As a UK wide network they offer an unprecedented opportunity for government to rebuild public trust in science. Their relationship with the public and honest broker status are key to their potential.

  6.2  Past evidence suggests a new approach is required if the public's dis-engagement with science is to be halted. Put simply past efforts have not proven entirely effective. While this is an effort that requires a multi-agency approach SDCs are well placed to be harnessed in this effort.

  6.3  SDCs are much more than visitor attractions and already deliver strongly for their regions. The wide partnerships that have been developed by many centres has made them much more credible and a legitimate tool in efforts to better promote PES.

  6.4  The advantage of receiving government funding would be that in return a joined-up approach can be developed which emphasises a collective approach. This will see widespread quality improvement, greater benchmarking and importantly greater impact.

  6.5  Having a solid funding base would enable centres to do much more with their local centres and other partners. The current funding situation in the UK is a major inhibitor of the activities and potential impacts of centres.

7.  RECOMMENDATION(S)

  7.1  Funding levels have not been mentioned here despite ECSITE-UK having previously suggested funding shortfalls. It is more appropriate for the Select Committee to commission its own (independent) review, should the inquiry move to its next phase.

  In Scotland's context a review of education activities by HMIe was supplemented by a review of economic performance by an independent economic consultant.

  7.2  Scotland's funding situation has been described as a "something for something" investment by Scotland's previous Deputy First Minister (Nicol Stephen). Any value assessment carried out at this stage of investigation, in terms of what SDC's currently do, needs to be coupled with a consideration of what SDC's might do in return for government support. This will require an ongoing dialogue with key representatives of the SDC sector.

  7.3  As an adjunct what defines an SDC needs to be determined at the earliest stage as otherwise the potential numbers become untenable. Four centres were identified by the Scottish Executive in Scotland but this number could have been considerably higher had self-selection been allowed. In essence funding spread too thinly will not achieve the desired result.

June 2006