SUMMARY

  1.  This text presents evidence from the owner of one of the country's most commercially successful attraction operators that running science centres is not commercially viable. On the other hand such centres offer particular public benefits in making people aware of the limits and strengths of scientific knowledge whilst encouraging interest provided that they are linked with active research. A strong case for Government support can be made.

RESPONDENT

  2.  I am John Walker Chief Executive of the York Archaeological Trust an independent charity financed wholly from its own activities. I am a Fellow of The Society of Antiquaries and a former staff member in archaeology at various English Universities. The Trust as well as conducting over 100 archaeological investigations a year owns and runs the JORVIK Viking Centre and DIG (formerly the Archaeological Resource Centre).

SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

  3.  This note draws a particular distinction between Museums and Science Centres. The former are seen as institutions with a particular culture that is focussed on objects. In contrast the latter are seen as mechanisms for promoting and illustrating scientific activities operating with a culture of scientific practice.

  4.  The evidence in this paper derives from three main sources; the work of others, our experience as a wide ranging charity in running such a centre and personal opinion.

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

  5.  There is a huge literature on science and science centres. The studies that have proved to have a particular resonance in our case have been the recent reports on the issue of public awareness of science produced by The Royal Society and a MORI poll. The MORI study "Science in Society" was conducted for the DTI and published in 2005.

  6  In summary these sources suggest that although the majority of the population are well disposed to science 59% do not feel that they are informed about science and scientific developments. Within the hard science sector 64% of scientists believe in the need for public engagement. In 89% of the cases they believe that lack of funding made it difficult for them to play a part in this area whilst 29% reported that lack of time was a significant constraint.

CONTRASTING FACILITIES: JORVIK AND DIG A CASE STUDY

  7.  We can offer a unique and particular insight through running both a highly successful tourist attraction and a science centre side-by-side. For many years the Trust drew a clear distinction between two of its facilities. JORVIK (which has attracted over 13 million visitors) was primarily about mass tourism and the Archaeological Resource Centre (latterly DIG) was about access to research and artefacts.

  8.  Since 2000 there has been an increase in the scientific content of JORVIK and in 2005 we replaced the Archaeological Resource Centre with DIG. The concept behind the new facility was to create an immersive 3D environment which took participants on a journey from the discovery of artefacts to using scientific techniques to investigate how these finds "fitted" within a history of the City. Essentially this new facility offered an opportunity to introduce a constructivist (learning by enquiry) approach that reflects not only how archaeology functions but mirrors the scientific method of enquiry.

  9.  We have today then two contrasting centres a few hundred metres apart under a unified management and marketing regime. They offer some insight in the relative performance of an archaeological science centre versus a more explicitly designed heritage tourism centre.

  10.  Comparative performance

  11.  In terms of revenue both ARC and latterly DIG have tended either to loose money or break-even. It would be fair to say that this Trust armed with these results would not have launched DIG without access to grant capital from ReDiscover. In contrast the surplus generated at JORVIK has meant that it has been possible to obtain bank loans for its development.

  12.  It is tempting to conclude that the difference is simply a result of one being an attraction the other a science centre but the reality is more complex. Whilst DIG is more biased towards science than JORVIK the latter does include some substantial demonstrations of "what scientists do" mainly funded by the Welcome Trust. With the passage of time the dividing line between attraction and centre is becoming less and less clear.

  13.  My opinion is that the difference in financial performance reflects a difference in financial resources at the time of purchase. The JORVIK audience is largely a tourist one in contrast to DIG where it is more dominated by school parties. These are fundamentally two different markets with different liquidity, who does not expect to spend large amounts on pleasure but considerably less on education?

COMPARATIVE EDUCATIONAL IMPACT

  14.  A significant aim behind the creation of DIG was to generate enthusiasm in the public for "the scientific method" and an understanding of "what scientists did" through using our own discoveries.

  15.  There is an extensive literature on the problems of assessing the short and long-term educational impact of a visit to a science centre. We too have conducted our own surveys. It would be fair to say at this stage that there are real difficulties in measuring impacts but that the weight of evidence is that they provide positive impacts best enhanced through the approaches demonstrated at DIG.

  16.  In summary it is felt that JORVIK has served to inform over 14 million people about the Vikings and York. It has served to correct previous impressions of Viking culture and certainly in the case of Norway been seen to rewrite and improve perceptions of a critical period in their cultural history.

  17.  DIG (ARC) has on the other hand has attracted more positive support from archaeologists as it reflects more accurately the nature of the discipline. It is thought that it plays a pivotal role in informing the public about the how scientific "facts" arise. It opens the door to reasoning rather than simply entertaining instruction.

  18.  As a Trust we recognise that the future of our science centre will depend upon two main factors our ability to supplement revenue shortfalls and access to capital grants. Given that we exist to educate we are also concerned at having to charge. We have seen where major institutions have dropped charges substantial increases in visitor numbers have occurred and that charging can act against the interests of the disadvantaged.

THE CASE FOR GOVERNMENT FUNDING: PUBLIC POLICY AND INTEREST

  19.  Central to any argument for Government funding must be that the proposal serves some wider state policy. It is clear through the Millennium Commission ReDiscover and the work of the Welcome Trust that there is a policy of support for science and science centres. Within Britain in 2005 the Scottish Executive concluded that central funding for four science centres was justified as "the science centres represent a valuable asset in helping to promote science education and in symbolising Scotland as a pro-science, pro-enterprise country." (The Scottish Science Centres Network 2005-09, Scottish Executive 2005).

  20.  Recently DCMS have published "Framework for evaluating cultural policy investment" (Frontier Economics May 2007) which purports to provide an economic rationale for state investment in cultural activities. In terms of the market failure rationale presented there a case could be made for funding in terms of three criteria, externalities, lack of information and quality of choice. Put simply the points would be science centres generate extra economic activity in their area for which they receive no return, purchasers lack sufficient information to know about what these centres offer and, lastly, that purchasers fail to correctly value what is on offer.

THE NATURE OF FUNDING AVAILABLE

  21.  The question also arises as to whether or not Government funding is a necessity. In our own case five sources of funding are usually available; admission charges, charitable giving, Government (national and local), lottery and commercial loans.

  22.  Access to each source is dependent upon particular criteria and gives rise to particular constraints. As we have seen admission charges restrict visitor numbers. With charitable giving in recent years a most important source has become Gift Aid. The government's commitment to this approach must be welcomed as it has substantially improved funding but the down-side is that it as it is proportional to admission costs it inadvertently encourages price increases. Another significant source the Lottery has come under pressure apparently arising from the Olympics. In our case we have used commercial loans but not for DIG simply because the commercial case is too weak.

  23.  Given these restrictions and the fact that Science Centres effectively support Government policy it is natural to look towards it as a source of funding. Such funding is commonplace even in more commercial societies than our own. In the U.S., for example, the Centre for Informal Learning and Schools in "ISIs and Schools: A landscape study" (2005) reported that of 500 centres that on average 28% of revenue came from earned income and 26% from local or national government.

TOWARDS A JUSTIFICATION

  24.  As a self-funding charity how can we justify an investment in a science centre? Like HMG we too have a belief in the benefits of wider public understanding of science. If however we considered the problem to be merely a matter of making people aware of discoveries then our own centre emerges as an expensive solution.

  25.  We ourselves use a whole range of techniques from the mainstream media, to a major attraction, to festivals (JORVIK Viking Festival), events (c 130 per annum), public lectures (c 30 per annum), excavation tours (up to 500 people per day), community projects and formal training (in conjunction with three UK universities). As a vehicle for simply making people aware of discoveries DIG is an expensive option. What then does DIG offer us that these other approaches cannot give?

  26.  At the practical level such a centre does offer three main advantages not found in the other mechanisms. Firstly, such a centre allows us to provide a safe all-weather 3D environment tailored to meet the needs of all types of school party and visitor. Secondly, it allows us to develop a particular approach that conjoins aspects of outdoor fieldwork with ready access to IT equipment. Thirdly, it allows us to present examples of the different schools of approach found within our discipline.

  27.  A more subtle but lasting benefit is the impact of such a centre on our own researchers. I am committed to the view that it is not an object orientated museum but a method for delivering research results to the public. The very existence of the centre makes in my view our own researchers more aware of both the need to communicate and of public needs and expectations. The benefits of this to archaeology where the remains and objects are, in themselves, often of great public sensitivity are clear and demonstrable.

  28.  The single most important benefit is, however, the most complex. Our experience is not that the public does not want to acquire either new knowledge or interest but rather that they lack an understanding of what we might call the scientific method. The major benefit one seeks to deliver is therefore to improve public understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. In an activity where one stone is a stone, two stones a wall and three a complete civilisation the challenge has always been to illustrate the benefits and limitations of archaeological knowledge.

  29.  The general public can struggle with how to evaluate evidence and deal with the uncertainty of scientific knowledge. Introducing archaeology through constructivist learning offers an effective and exciting way into better equipping them to deal not only with uncertainties about the past but also with issues of the present such as global warming and nuclear power.

THE WAY AHEAD

  30.  I hope this paper offers a reasonable case for financial support for science centres based upon both commercial reality and public benefit. If it is decided to move ahead I would go on to argue that any the form any such support could take should be closely informed by the Government's hope for a newly empowered Third Sector.

June 2007