Science centres
27. Co-ordination and collaboration are key in the
strategies of science centres. But we found evidence that the
level of co-ordination between science centres and between science
centres and other organisations varies by sector and geographically.
28. Many science centres are co-ordinating particularly
well with the education sector. We were impressed by the many
submissions that outlined the extensive and productive relationships
that exist between science centres and schools, local authorities,
STEMNET (a network organisation promoting STEM subjects and careers)
and Science Learning Centres (which provides continuing professional
development opportunities for science teachers across the UK).
For example, the Eden Project in Cornwall has a well established
programme of professional development for teachers, and Magna
Science Adventure Centre in Rotherham provides workshops for the
different key stages of the national curriculum and follows these
up by working with the local education authorities, colleges,
engineering associations and secondary schools to run design competitions
and science projects that help to retain the interest of the students
that was gained during the workshops.[35]
These kinds of close relationships are vital to enable science
centres to produce programmes that maximise the visit experience
and educational benefit for children by complementing what is
being taught in the classroom, as well as helping science teachers
to achieve their potential.
29. Many science centres also maintain close collaborations
with scientists and universities. It is clear from the work of
centres across the sector, from the National Space Centre to the
Centre for Life,[36]
that science centres have well established and creative relationships
with experts across all areas of science and technology. We were
also pleased to see that these relationships work both ways since
universities are working with science centres as part of their
strategies for increased public engagement. Examples include Cardiff
University, which works particularly closely with Techniquest,
and Durham University, which works with a number of science centres
including the Centre for Life in Newcastle and also with the Science
Learning Centre North East. [37]
30. We also received evidence of collaboration between
science centres although some science centres seem more actively
engaged in inter-science centre collaborative projects than others.
Good examples include a collaboration between At-Bristol, Ecsite-uk,
Glasgow Science Centre, Inspire (Norwich), Magna (Rotherham),
National Museums Liverpool, Satrosphere (Aberdeen) and W5 (Belfast)
that developed and delivered a series of touring exhibitions that
continue to be hired out to science centres across Europe; and
Investigate UK, which is a project to develop a set of portable
exhibits to tour local schools, run between At-Bristol, INTECH,
the Porthcurno Telegraph Museum and the Science Learning Centres
South West and South East. The co-ordinating role that Ecsite-uk
plays, brokering relationships between centres and providing a
network of experienced staff, is extremely valuable.[38]
31. However, both the Wellcome Trust and NESTA called
for greater collaboration between science centres and between
science centres and the formal education sector.[39]
These kinds of collaborations, along with other examples of best
practice, like sharing staff between science centres, are commonplace
in Scotland,[40] where
the science centres are co-ordinated by the Scottish Science Centres
Network, which exists to maximise the benefits of the funding
that Scottish science centres receive from the Scottish Government.
By setting a four year strategic plan, co-ordinating joint bids
for funding, encouraging collaboration between the science centres
and conducting quality assessment, the Scottish Science Centres
Network has enabled Glasgow Science Centre, Our Dynamic Earth
(Edinburgh), Satrosphere Science Centre (Aberdeen) and Sensation
(Dundee) to become key parts of the Scottish Science Strategy.
32. There is widespread support for the Scottish
model of co-ordination.[41]
Science centres could particularly benefit from touring exhibitions
which would refresh the content of science centres and give visitors
a reason to visit more than once. We also note that there could
be more collaboration with the Research Councils, which can provide
an additional layer of expertise and which may be able to sponsor
new exhibitions and programmes.[42]
Additionally, industry and commerce, which is a sector that relies
on a supply of STEM skilled people, is a potential resource that
remains underused—and we should look at the USA to identify
how best to work with that sector.[43]
Finally, the regional benefits, both in terms of tourism and education,
should not be overlooked, with opportunities to work with local
authorities and Regional Development Agencies.[44]
33. We urge
Ecsite-uk, on behalf of the science centre community, to examine
co-ordination and collaboration mechanisms that exist in Scotland
and internationally, with a view to implementing structural and
best practice guidance that promotes co-ordination between science
centres across the UK. Practices such as sharing exhibitions nationally
(according to specialism base) or staff regionally (across a range
of centre types) would be extremely beneficial. Formal regional
co-ordinating bodies, modelled on the Scottish Science Centres
Network, may be the best way to facilitate this.
Government
34. Prior to July 2007, the three Government departments
that held responsibility for science centres were:
- the Office of Science and Innovation,
which sat within the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI);
- the Department for Education and Skills (DfES);
and
- the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS),
which was responsible for museums.
It was under this departmental organisation that
our call for evidence went out. We received submissions that expressed
concern that science centres were falling between the inter-departmental
cracks and that called for a clarification of how departmental
responsibility was organised with respect of science centres.[45]
We were concerned by the perception that "no one government
department is prepared to take responsibility for them".[46]
35. On 28 June 2007, the Prime Minister announced
a new departmental arrangement. The Office of Science and Innovation
was taken out of the DTI (which became the Department for Business,
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform), and its responsibilities subsumed
by a new department, the Department for Innovation, Universities
and Skills (DIUS), which also took over the DfES universities
and skills portfolio. DfES became the Department for Children,
Schools and Families (DCSF). DCMS remains as it was.
36. The June
2007 departmental reorganisation presents an opportunity for defining
clear lines of responsibility for science centres. We welcome
the Minister for Science and Innovation's offer, on behalf of
DIUS, to take responsibility for science centres.[47]
We recommend that responsibility
for science centres be formally written into the Minister's portfolio.
However, we recognise that input from DCSF and DCMS is necessary
and the Minister for Science and Innovation should ensure that
decisions and assessments are co-ordinated between all three departments.
35 Ev 89 Back
36
See Ev 198 for examples of collaboration between science centres
and scientists. Back
37
Ev 161-164 and Ev 53 respectively Back
38
Ev 136-137, 204, 206 Back
39
Q 45, Ev 114-115, 149 Back
40
Ev 144-145, see also Ev 54, 106, 116-117, 182 Back
41
Q 41 [Phil Winfield], Q 58; Ev 53-55, 101, 116, 117, 182 Back
42
Ev 100 provides a list of recent collaborations between science
centres and Research Councils. Back
43
Q 47-50 Back
44
Q 51 Back
45
Ev 64, 72, 105 Back
46
Ev 121 Back
47
Q 88 Back
