EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  Sustaining a knowledge-based, innovation-driven economy is closely linked to a country's technological capacity and support for research and development. This capacity is underpinned by the education and training programs in engineering, science, and technology (EST) available at our universities. The choice of a career in EST can be positively impacted by the quality of the exposure that young people receive at their schools and in their communities. Science and Discovery Centers and their outreach programs play a very important role in promoting interest in EST in students. Given the rate at which engineers for example are being graduated in China and India and growing competition from rapidly-industrialising economies, it is extremely important that Science and Discovery Centers be well-supported by the state. In Wales, the network of Science Discovery Centers should be further supported to expand their outreach programs to both schools and to communities. Such an action would be consistent with the decision by G-8 nations to invest more in better technological education (Prof. Calestous Juma, FRS. The 2006 Hinton Lecture. Royal Academy of Engineering. October 2006).

  Science and Discovery Centers fulfil a role described by Dr. Ben Ngubane (then South African Minister of Science and Technology in a Speech given in June 2002 at a Commonwealth Science Council Meeting) as part of a learning revolution where innovative thinking drives the learning experience; where people of all ages are encouraged to see through things so that they can see things through and are given the freedom to imagine what they will learn when they learn to imagine.

1.  Global Context

  In an address (end of March 2006) inaugurating the R&D campus of the National Institute of Design (India), the Director-General of UNIDO (UN Industrial Development Organisation) stressed the importance of a country's engineers and scientists being involved in research, rather than making a career in administration. Referring to UNIDO's 2004 and 2005 ranking of around 90 countries on the scale of competitive industrial performance, the Director-General pointed out that for these two consecutive years, Singapore topped the list. With an efficient national industrial innovation system, which constantly enhances the research- and innovation-intensity of scientists and engineers, Singapore has been able to climb the ladder of value added and make its manufacturing production structure more akin to the global reality. The lessons learned from Singapore suggest that it is not the number of scientists and engineers that matter, but the research- and innovation- intensity of scientists and engineers. If scientists and engineers are not actively engaged in research and innovation at institutions, there will be "institutionalized inactivity" in research and innovation.

2.  Challenge of globalisation—US response

March 19, 2007. Business Week

  This report described political support to boost America's long-term competitiveness by getting more U.S. youth to study science and engineering.

  Unveiling the "America Competes Act", Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) called for hiking U.S. investment in basic research and to improve math and science education. The Innovation Agenda endorsed by the House of Representatives Democrats called for producing 100,000 new scientists.

  This report indicated that China is now racing past the U.S. as a producer of this crucial talent. As multinationals and Chinese government agencies pour more resources into state-of-the-art research labs in the mainland, Duke University's Vivek Wadhwa, a lead author of a study on America's competitiveness, commented that America's leadership in science and technology could be in serious danger in three to seven years.

  On March 11 Senator Reid referred to statistics that China graduates 650,000 engineers a year and India 350,000, compared to 70,000 in the U.S.

3.  Science centers and their influence on careers

  There are very few studies of the effect that science centers have on students' career choice and the S&T Committee could encourage more studies to be undertaken.

  Sullivan (2005) concluded that exposure to engineering might be most profound in grades 3 to 8. In these formative years hands-on engineering experiences, conveyed through inquiry-based, design-oriented, instructional methodology, can support the learning of standards-based science and mathematics while stimulating student learning and making engineering come alive.

  Woolnough (1994) showed that extracurricular science activities encouraged students to study science at school and to pursue science careers. Coventry (1997) surveyed university students. She found that 80% of students studying for science-based careers had visited the science center in Perth, Australia at least once whereas 64% of students who were not studying for science-based careers had visited Scitech. Similar findings were made by Salmi (2000) in Finland. There is evidence that youth programs in science centers have encouraged participants to pursue careers in science teaching (Siegel 1998).

4.  The societal impact of science centers

  Witschey (2001) writes of the Science Center of Virginia as "the power house of the community" and describes a rich array of partnerships and programs that the Museum undertakes with its community. This is undoubtedly the case in many communities that are served by science centers.

  The St Louis Science Center runs a Youth Exploring Science (YES!) program in which the-Science Center works with Job Training groups to provide a year round work-based training program. Science centers increase tourism to their local area. They run youth employment and volunteer schemes. They support local clubs and societies. They develop special programs for the elderly and for people with disabilities. They are involved with environmental rehabilitation and they affect the roads, parking and transport systems in their area.

  Lipardi (1997) describes how the Citta"della Scienza works with local councils, firms and research centres in order to enhance the development potential of a geographical area, with particular emphasis on the development of local industry.

  However, although science centers have put many programs in place that benefit society, on the whole, they have not developed the methodology to measure the impact that they have at a societal level. Sheppard (2000) makes a strong plea that they should do so: "As museums engage more substantially in building social capital and partnering in their communities, they need strong, effective evaluation methodology to measure their work. Anecdotal information suggests that community outreach may be transforming both museums and the communities they serve. To support further investment in community partnership, however, museums and their publics need to test such assumptions through consistent and methodical research. Museums have many stakeholders to convince, from their own board and governance to public and private funders and ultimately the public that chooses to engage in the rich programs they offer".

5.  References

  Coventry, V (1997). Major influences on career choice: a study conducted on behalf of Scitech Discovery Centre, Perth, Western Australia. Perth: 4.

  Lipardi, V (1997). A strategy to build links with local community: the experience of Citta" della Scienza. ECSITE Annual Conference, Brussels.

  Salmi, D H (2000). Career choices and Heureka. Unpublished memo (in Finnish). Finland, Heureka: The Finnish Science Center.

  Sheppard, B (2000). Do museums make a difference? Evaluating programs for social change. Curator: The Museum Journal 43(1): 63-74.

  Siegel, E (1998). The Science Career Ladder at the New York Hall of Science. Curator 41(4): 246-290.

  Sullivan, Jacqueline. (2005) A call for K-16 Engineering Education. The Bridge. 36 (2). P 23.

  Witschey, W. (2001). Many roles to play: the science centre as community powerhouse. Richmond, Science Center of Virginia: 3.

  Woolnough, B. (1994). "Factors affecting students' choice of science and engineering". International Journal of Science Education 16: 659-676.

June 2007