Select Committee on Science and Technology Third Report


  3.1  "Public understanding of science" means the understanding of scientific matters by non-experts. This cannot of course mean a comprehensive knowledge of all branches of science. It may however include understanding of the nature of scientific methods, including the testing of hypotheses by experiment. It may also include awareness of current scientific advances and their implications. Public understanding of science has become a shorthand term for all forms of outreach by the scientific community, or by others on their behalf (e.g. science writers, museums, event organisers), to the public at large, aimed at improving that understanding. It is sometimes expressed more comprehensively as "public understanding of science, engineering and technology".

  3.2  We have been told that, in the 15 years since the Bodmer Report[26] and the founding of COPUS there has been a cultural change in the attitude of scientists to outreach activities (Turney Q 111, Ogilvie QQ 121 & 148, Cox Q 123, Attenborough Q 381, Sci Mus p 68). Such activity is no longer seen, except by a dwindling minority, as beneath the dignity of a researcher - although, according to some of our witnesses, scientists who give time to outreach still risk losing standing among their peers (e.g. Falvey p 294).

  3.3  Encouraged by the Science White Paper Realising our Potential of 1993, public understanding activities now receive £4.5m per year from the budget of the OST (May Q 2), and are part of the mission of every Research Council (Ogilvie Q 121)—though not of the Higher Education Funding Councils, the largest single funders of academic research in the United Kingdom, a matter which we return to below. Further resources come from several of the funding streams created by the National Lottery. The number of grants, and of applications for grants, for such work is going up (Briggs QQ 124, 148). In this area, the United Kingdom is ahead of many other nations (British Council QQ 513, 533; COPUS Q 832; @Bristol p 65; CUP p 273).

  3.4  It is tempting to see the problem solely in terms of these activities and resources. They must however be seen in perspective. For most people, by far the biggest influences on their understanding of science are the science teaching which they experience in school, and presentations of science in newspapers and magazines and on TV. Whether these inputs could be improved, we consider below in Chapters 6 and 7.

  3.5  There is now a large academic community within social science devoted to the study of the public understanding of science and of the impact of science outreach activities, with a substantial literature. The ESRC is in the process of setting up a major programme of grants for research in this field.

  3.6  Nevertheless, evaluating the impact of all this expenditure and activity on the public remains a highly inexact science. The Government's Science Week has grown, and has attracted increasing coverage in the media (May Q 30). Numbers of events and of people attending them are a very crude measure; but better ones are hard to find (Irwin Q 84, Briggs Q 124, Sci Mus/@Bristol Q 251, CA Q 609).

  3.7  Science outreach activity is not confined to the public sector; technology-based businesses may see advantage in explaining themselves to the public. As an example, BNFL has used TV and press advertising in this way, and has been rewarded with increases in requests for information and visits to its website and to the Visitors Centre at Sellafield (p 267).

  3.8  The OST are currently reviewing their work in this area. We hope that they will find this report, and the evidence which we have assembled, helpful.

A new mood for dialogue

  3.9  Despite all this activity and commitment, we have been told from several quarters that the expression "public understanding of science" may not be the most appropriate label. Sir Robert May called it a "rather backward-looking vision" (Q 28). It is argued that the words imply a condescending assumption that any difficulties in the relationship between science and society are due entirely to ignorance and misunderstanding on the part of the public; and that, with enough public-understanding activity, the public can be brought to greater knowledge, whereupon all will be well. This approach[27] is felt by many of our witnesses to be inadequate; the British Council went so far as to call it "outmoded and potentially disastrous" (p 140).

  3.10  As we argued in Chapter 1 above, science cannot ignore its social context. In Chapter 2 we reviewed evidence of a decline in trust; rebuilding trust will require improved communication in both directions. Professor Conway put it thus to the directors of Monsanto, in the context of GM crops: "There is a great deal of talking going on—much of it very emotional and acrimonious. Yet there is very little accountability or transparency in these discussions. The dialogue needs to be better informed, better structured and more inclusive. There may be an opportunity to help create a public space for conversation—to turn down the decibel level and increase the amount of real information and exchange that could lead to a more positive outcome". Or, as Sir Aaron Klug put it[28], "Engagement with society is a two-way process, involving dialogue between different (though not necessarily opposing) sets of values".

  3.11  It is therefore increasingly important that non-experts should be able to understand aspects of science and technology which touch their lives. It is also increasingly important that scientists should seek to understand the impact of their work and its possible applications on society and public opinion, not least through the media. They should see themselves as "civic scientists" - a phrase coined by Dr Neal Lane, the US President's Assistant for Science and Technology, whom we were pleased to meet in Washington—that is, as scientists "concerned not just with intriguing intellectual questions but also with using science to help address societal needs"[29]. The new spirit of accountability and the new mood for dialogue are not confined to the United Kingdom, but are being felt equally in the USA.

  3.12  In the rest of this chapter we review some of the institutions and activities which currently operate under the term "public understanding of science". As will be seen, many of them are already beginning to respond to the current mood for dialogue between society and science. In Chapter 5 we consider ways to take this dialogue a step further.


  3.13  COPUS, the Committee on the Public Understanding of Science, was established by the Royal Society, the BAAS and the Royal Institution in 1986, to take forward the recommendations of the Bodmer Report. Three members of the sub-committee which conducted this inquiry are former members of COPUS, and one, Lord Porter of Luddenham, was its founding Chairman; one of our Advisers, Professor John Durant, is a current member.

  3.14  The Committee consists of representatives of the three sponsoring organisations, and others. Its principal activities have been networking and consultation; sharing best practice and research; grants for innovative projects in science communication; and the Rhône-Poulenc Prizes for science books. COPUS is serviced by staff of the sponsoring organisations, and funded out of the Royal Society's grant-in-aid.

  3.15  Over the period of our inquiry, though independently of it, COPUS has been reviewing its role, having been invited to do so by the Minister for Science. In oral evidence to us on 23 November 1999, Dame Bridget Ogilvie, the Chairman, told us their plans (Q 781), which are now the subject of consultation. In brief,

  3.16  We commend COPUS for conducting this review. COPUS has proved its worth, in particular by encouraging and supporting a wide range of activities, by levering funds from Government and other sources for science outreach work, and above all by giving such work increased respect throughout the scientific community. We are glad that the sponsoring organisations have committed themselves to continuing and developing its work. We recommend that the OST should give favourable consideration to any reasonable bid from COPUS for direct support.

  3.17  Many of COPUS's grants are for projects aimed at children. Yet the COPUS Committee has not included anyone from the world of science education, and it is not proposed that the expanded Council should do so either (Q 797). Given the widely acknowledged importance of science in schools in forming public attitudes, which Dame Bridget herself highlighted (Q 132) and about which we have more to say in Chapter 6, we recommend that COPUS should find room on its new Council for someone from the field of science education in schools. A nomination could perhaps be sought from the Association for Science Education.

  3.18  We note COPUS's argument that the activity should retain its familiar name. So many of our witnesses, however, have expressed doubts about the phrase "public understanding of science", that we wonder whether this decision should be reconsidered. Coining brand names is an art in which we profess no expertise. But a new name would in our view acknowledge the new mood for dialogue referred to above, and would underscore the significant changes in COPUS's composition which are to take place.

  3.19  One suggestion put to us is that the new body might be called "the Council on Science and Society". We have found that the title of our inquiry, "Science and Society", has had wide appeal and resonance among the scientists, educationists and members of the public who have appeared before us. This is perhaps because it implies dialogue, in a way that "public understanding of science" does not. We note in particular that this is the phrase which the British Council has chosen to describe United Kingdom activities in this area (see below, Chapter 5). We invite the partners in COPUS's reformed Council to consider seriously a new name along these lines.

Research Councils

  3.20  It is the policy of all of the Research Councils to encourage all whom they support to engage in dissemination and outreach beyond the immediate scientific community. The Councils hold two important levers for promoting this kind of cultural change within the scientific community.

  3.21  The first such lever is in the support of post-graduate students. As the largest single sponsor of such students, Research Councils are in a position to require universities to make provision for training in any particular area, and they already do this in certain respects. Although the responsibility for educating and training students lies squarely with the universities, Research Councils have helped universities by sponsoring or running specialist courses that it might not be practicable for individual universities to run by themselves.

  3.22  In particular, most Research Councils offer post-graduates a few days training in communication and media skills. COPUS considers that this should be obligatory (Q 148, BAAS p 48). In our view this goes too far. But communication training for scientists and, in particular, training in dealing with the media should be strongly encouraged.

  3.23  Furthermore, in the light of the new mood for dialogue referred to above, we recommend that the communication training offered to research students should be broadened to include an awareness of the social context of their research and its applications; and that strenuous efforts be made by universities to see that as many students as possible take full advantage of this opportunity. This would conform with precept 8A of the Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Education, issued by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, in its section on postgraduate research programmes: "Research students should have access to training sufficient to gain the skills they need to design and complete their programmes effectively and to help prepare themselves for their subsequent careers. In considering the provision of skills training, institutions will wish to consider the development of a broad understanding of the context in which the research takes place". We recognise that some universities are doing this already. It is for consideration whether this should be extended to students on other postgraduate courses as well.

  3.24  The second lever held by Research Councils relates to those to whom they give grants to carry out particular pieces of research. It is possible for a grant-giving body to encourage every grant-holder to engage in outreach activity as part of the work supported, and to encourage them to undertake whatever training is necessary to help them to do this effectively. Table 1 gives an indication of the some of the outreach requirements of the Research Councils, and the help offered to those whom they support.

  3.25  It has been put to us that all scientists should be obliged to have some experience of outreach activities as part of their training (@Bristol QQ 244, 265). We agree with Dr. Turney (Q 112) that to make outreach work compulsory is to go too far. Requiring every researcher to popularise their work, regardless of inclination and aptitude and of the nature of the work, would not be practicable, would waste resources and might expose science to ridicule.

  3.26  We commend the efforts of the Research Councils to promote both scientific outreach activities themselves and the training needed by scientists to allow them to carry out those activities effectively. We must, however, emphasise that these responsibilities are shared between all the sponsors of research and the universities themselves. We recommend that grant-giving bodies should give researchers every encouragement to share their research with the public which, one way or another, is usually paying for it, and should support and reward those who do so; and that universities should for their parts see this as a shared responsibility.

Table 1: Research Council policies on outreach by grant-holders
Grant-holders have to supply project summary in plain English
Grant applicants questioned about approach to outreach activities
Grant-holders have to develop dissemination strategy
Annual report must cover outreach activities
Yes if required
Final report must cover outreach activities
Grant-holders offered extra funds for outreach activities
Grant-holders offered free media and communication training
Yes on pilot basis
Senior researchers only
MRC Unit staff only
Grant-holders given written advice on media and communication
MRC Unit staff only
Council has networks of specialist staff on school liaison and communication
Grant-holders can get help from Council's information and press staff

  *  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council; Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council; Economic and Social Research Council; Medical Research Council; Natural Environment Research Council; Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council.

Research Assessment Exercise

  3.27  While the Research Council leg of the dual support system for university research is encouraging outreach activity, it has been put to us that because of the influence of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), the other leg, comprising the Higher Education Funding Councils, is much less helpful. Cambridge University Press told us, "One unfortunate effect of the Research Assessment Exercises has been to discourage book writing by scientists based in universities. Efforts to engage the general public do not 'count' towards the score in the RAE. At Cambridge University Press we have encountered face to face younger academics who have received instructions not to write books, and established professionals who are not willing to risk the department dropping a grade if they take time out to write" (p 273).

  3.28  Other witnesses make the same point (STEMPRA p 401; Wellcome Q 462). It may be related to the widely-suspected general tendency of the RAE to undervalue interdisciplinary collaboration and initiatives.

  3.29  We put this issue to the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). They replied as follows:

  "The principle and practice of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) has been to discriminate not on the basis of the type of activity, type of output, methodology or audience but on the quality of the work. However, quality is not judged by publishing outputs alone: lectures, prizes and other 'public' accolades which relate to public understanding of science are also assessed just as much as any other field. Data from the 1996 RAE shows that 16 universities submitted work entitled 'public understanding of science' that was assessed under the RAE which indicates an increasing acknowledgement of this work. However, within the context of the RAE it would also be fair to acknowledge that public understanding of science activities do not have the same weight attached to them as high quality publications.

  "The 2001 RAE has seen an increase in the extent to which panels are explicitly recognising the dissemination and impact of all funded research as a potential indicator of quality; both these trends will enhance the promotion of public understanding of science research and related activities" (p 280).

  3.30  This response, while encouraging as far as it goes, is in fact misconceived and fails to address the problem. The lectures referred to are scientific lectures, of the sort which indicate a researcher's standing in the scientific community, not public lectures. The public-understanding work submitted for the 1996 RAE was academic research into the public understanding of science, not work directly aimed at improving public understanding. And the published papers of RAE 2001, including the definition of research and the draft criteria to be applied by the panel for each Unit of Assessment, contain no explicit reference to the dissemination of research to the general public

  3.31  The nub of the problem is that, in being quite explicit about the work that will be assessed and rewarded financially by the RAE, the Funding Councils may have inadvertently caused some neglect of other important activities such as popular science writing and more generally the promotion of the public understanding of scientific issues. Although a number of universities give high priority to the popular dissemination of the results of their research, this is not universally the case. No doubt in the face of financial exigencies, some universities have felt obliged to neglect activities such as public outreach that are not specifically required by their financial sponsors, but which nevertheless ought to be central to the mission of a university carrying out research.

  3.32  We therefore recommend that the Higher Education Funding Councils give serious and urgent thought to rewarding, if necessary through a separate funding stream[33], the work of those who have successfully brought the results of their research to a wider audience. Even if the implementation of such a scheme took a little while—and we hope that it would not—an early announcement that the Funding Councils had it in mind to introduce one would be extremely helpful.

Science museums and science centres

  3.33  The United Kingdom has a large and diverse range of institutions devoted to the public understanding of science. Some parts of it are old and established: the Royal Institution, the BAAS and other institutions, the great museums with their historical collections, and the annual national science festival organised by the BAAS at a different venue each year. More recent elements include the growing networks of science centres, the five Scottish science festivals in Edinburgh, Orkney, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Moray (Firth p 297), and the two "science shops" in Northern Ireland (p 420)[34].

  3.34  There is also a wealth of individual and often imaginative local initiatives, such as the St Mary Redcliffe "Journey into Science" in Bristol (p 247), and the Café Scientifique, founded in Leeds and now setting up in Nottingham and Newcastle (p 271), both of which have received Royal Society Millennium Awards. It is notable that both St Mary Redcliffe and the Café Scientifique stand not for instruction, but for debate on neutral ground, in full accord with the new mood for dialogue noted above.

  3.35  We have received evidence from two of the pre-eminent national museums, the Science Museum and the Natural History Museum. Caricature would have it that most people visit such places just three times in their life: as children with their parents, as parents with their children, and as grandparents with their grandchildren. Dr Robert Bloomfield, Head of Design for Communication at the Natural History Museum, comments that, while this caricature is "not actually accurate, it does serve to indicate a public contact with science that they value highly as both a social and educational experience" (p 62). Both these great South Kensington museums have changed much in the last 20 years, in particular in developing modern "hands-on" exhibits[35]. Both are currently engaged in further major changes, responding to the new emphasis on uncertainty, public involvement and debate.

  3.36  The Science Museum has had public understanding as a key part of its mission since its foundation in Victorian times. It made a major contribution to developments in this area with the appointment of John Durant (one of our Specialist Advisers) as Assistant Director of the Museum in 1998 and in 1989 as the first Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Imperial College, an appointment from which have flowed a number of valuable initiatives (p 67).

  3.37  Work is now in progress on two new developments. First, a "Wellcome Wing" is under construction, to open in June 2000. It is to be devoted to displays and public dialogue on contemporary science, primarily in the fields of biomedicine and IT. Secondly, in 2002 the Queen's Gate Centre for Science and the Public is to be created, incorporating an academic unit, a forum for public debates, and a new headquarters for the BAAS. The Centre may have an international role, with possible involvement by UNESCO (British Council Q 541; COPUS Q 832).

  3.38  The Natural History Museum led the way in the 1970s in moving from an academic, curatorial style towards more popular presentation of its collections, in a spirit of cultural entrepreneurship. The opening of the "Earth Galleries" marked a further step in this direction. With the creation of a new "Darwin Centre", the Museum now plans to give the public unprecedented access to the back rooms and to the curators and researchers who inhabit them (p 63, QQ 239, 264).

  3.39  Meanwhile, in recent years the great national museums have been complemented by a growing number of "science centres". A science centre is distinguished from a science museum by having exhibits and activities but no collections. The existing United Kingdom science centres, numbering around 40, are highly diverse; typically they are small, and local or regional in origin and support, with a mission focused on interesting and enthusing children.

  3.40  Science centres are currently receiving a significant boost from funds raised by the National Lottery. £1bn is being invested, including £396m from the Lottery through the Millennium Commission, to create a group of large science centres spread around the country. We received evidence from one of them, "@Bristol". Its Chief Executive, Gillian Thomas, described what is happening as "the largest single investment in science communication ever to take place in this country" (p 64)[36].

  3.41  Miss Thomas observed, however, that, although the Lottery has provided capital funds, there is at present no mechanism to support the running costs of science centres from public funds, and inadequate strategic oversight from the responsible department, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) (p 65, QQ 243, 265). The position of science centres in this respect contrasts with the position of the national museums, which receive grants-in-aid from the DCMS. Nor can science centres register as museums with the Museums and Galleries Commission and the Area Museums Councils, which provide museums with advice, support and project funds.

  3.42  We put this to the DCMS. They replied (p 424) by pointing to examples of science centres receiving support from museums, and to the desire expressed by the Chairman of the new Museums, Libraries and Archives Council "for museums, libraries and archives to build links and create partnerships with similar types of organisations", including science centres. But they offered no solution to the problem of revenue funding.

  3.43  In Scotland, the growing network of science centres is brought together by the Scottish Science Centres Consortium and supported by the Scottish Science Trust, which was set up in 1997 by the Royal Society of Edinburgh and Scottish Enterprise, with the encouragement of the Scottish Office (as it then was) and the Millennium Commission (p 405). This structure meets the need identified by Miss Thomas, without the artificiality of lumping science centres together with science museums. We call on the OST and the DCMS to set up a similar structure to the Scottish Science Trust for England and Wales.

  3.44  We heard witnesses from the established world of museums and the new scene of science centres side-by-side, and we were impressed by their high degree of common ground and their willingness to work together.

  3.45  In particular, the museums and science centres alike are seized of the need to respond more rapidly to newly emerging issues involving science, and all agree that formal exhibitions, with their long lead-times, are a difficult medium for doing so. We heard the same message at the Museum of Science in Boston. A better medium for rapid response is debate between the scientists and other key players, and our witnesses all see hosting and supporting debate as an important part of their future work (QQ 245-9).

  3.46  Miss Thomas suggested that, in seeking to identify emerging issues, the museums and science centres could receive valuable help from the Research Councils and the Government's Foresight panels (see below, Chapter 5) (Q 246). This is an imaginative suggestion, requiring no great new infrastructure to make it happen. In return, museums and science centres offer natural venues for debate and consultation initiated by the Research Councils and other such bodies. We recommend that the OST should establish liaison linking the science museums and science centres with the Research Councils and the Foresight team, so that each can help the other to identify and respond to emerging issues in science.


  3.47  One major new development affecting public understanding of science is the rapid growth of Internet access among the general public. This gives the growing army of information "haves" (at present one United Kingdom household in every five and rising fast) direct access to a vast library of scientific information. In the view of Dr Bloomfield of the Natural History Museum, public access to "knowledge resources" is becoming increasingly important "as people take a more democratic the decision-making process" (Q 239). He sees putting such resources on the Internet, and achieving international standards to allow data from different sources to be searched and correlated consistently, as a major task for the next few years (p 63, QQ 239, 269).

  3.48  The advantages of the Internet are matched by a set of disadvantages: see Box 1. One problem, widely acknowledged, is that the quality of Internet material is highly variable and completely uncontrolled. Indeed peer-reviewed material often has to be paid for, giving an advantage to material of lower quality (p 332).

  3.49  Several of our witnesses contemplate solutions to this problem: some system of "kitemarking" of Internet sites (BAAS p 49), possibly organised through the major search engines (NHM Q 265), or the provision and advertisement of public-access sites of high quality (CUP p 273); or of "portals" providing links to such sites, with quality assurance (Sc Sci Trust p 409). AlphaGalileo (see Chapter 7 below) provides a model; but it is aimed at the press rather than the wider public. The Scottish Science Trust suggests that a science centre web site might provide an appropriately reliable but independent location for such a "portal". We recommend that the OST should give appropriate institutions incentives to collaborate to create and maintain such sites.

  3.50  Besides acting as a source of information, the Internet can of course be used for consultation and debate. We consider this aspect below in Chapter 5.

Box 1

Science information on the Web: pros and cons

  • Large potential international reach
  • Users are likely to be taxpayers
  • User access is quick and convenient
  • Use can be monitored
  • Can be used for rapid large-scale polling

  • Actual reach never matches potential
  • Users are not representative of society
  • Many competing sites
  • No check on authenticity of material
  • No permanent record

      Source: Institute of Biology et al.

Special initiatives for women

  3.51  It is important that children do not grow up frightened of science and technology. Therefore a vital point of collaboration between the public, the media and the scientific community must lie in primary and secondary schools. In the past, this has been patchy, and often neglected in primary schools. In particular, for most of the 20th century science and technology were regarded as a male world, and girls and women were often excluded from good science teaching.

  3.52  Half the adult population is female. Mothers and grandmothers often lack interest and knowledge in these areas, and indeed often express fear and ignorance. This leads children, and especially girls, to adopt these attitudes too. Everything done to interest men in these areas needs considerably more effort to interest women in general. There are of course now far more women scientists, technologists and engineers than there used to be, and their help needs to be engaged to show how natural and attractive it can be for women, as well as men, to be interested and knowledgeable about science.

  3.53  Improving women's understanding will have a disproportionate effect in putting the subject across to the general public. Women may already share public anxieties in areas such as the environment and family life more deeply than men; and they are usually the purchasers of food and household equipment, so will give a clearer picture than men of what the market will stand.

  3.54  It is therefore worthwhile persevering in the general field of adult education to interest and inform women in science and technology. It is of great importance of course to both their home safety and possible promotion in their jobs, but also they can influence their families knowledgeably.

  3.55  Dame Bridget Ogilvie, Chairman of COPUS, referred to COPUS's very successful initiative of giving grants to the Federation of Women's Institutes over a period of six years. She said "That is because it has a community of about a quarter of a million people - representing, I suppose, a lot more than that - and now the activity is sufficiently embedded within that general public organisation, the organisation itself is seeking grants from COPUS and elsewhere" (Q 140). The Women's Institutes now run a large range and number of courses to give women a wide understanding of science.

  3.56  The evidence of the Engineering Council (p 286) shows the breadth of its work in this area with the WISE (Women Into Science and Engineering) vehicles, enabling tens of thousands of school girls to have hands-on experience of science and technology in practical and interesting ways. Also women engineers take an active part in its Neighbourhood Engineers Programme. Both these schemes have been successful in encouraging girls to continue and expand their study of science and technology.

  3.57  These initiatives often need comparatively modest financial backing if they are to continue. We recommend that the Government should continue to earmark funds for special initiatives to improve women's understanding of science.


  3.58  It will be seen that efforts to improve relationships between science and society take many forms, and that much excellent work is being done in this area - indeed, better work in this country than in many others. The large current investment in science centres is a new and wholly welcome development, which must be consolidated as we recommend above.

  3.59  However, it is clear that there is a new mood for dialogue and debate, to which existing institutions must respond and in many cases are already responding, as noted above. In particular, the relaunch of COPUS—or whatever it is now to be called—is well timed, and will enable the leaders of the scientific community to give their efforts in this area a new thrust.

26   See note 7 above. Back

27   Referred to in academic parlance as the "deficit model". Back

28   Royal Society Anniversary Address 1999. Back

29   Dr Lane speaking on 29 September 1999. Back

30   NERC grantholders are not asked for an annual report; but NERC requests yearly information on Output and Performance Measures, including information on outreach activities. Back

31   EPSRC has a large Pupil Researcher Initiative involving schools, run by Sheffield Hallam University. Back

32   PPARC employs two Schools Officers, one for astronomy and one for particle physics. Back

33   A possible model for this is the Higher Education Reach Out Fund, established by the HEFCE in 1999 to enhance interaction between higher education and business, with funds from the DfEE and the DTI. Back

34   Appendix 4 includes an account of the Science Shop run by the Technical University of Denmark. Back

35   The lead here was given by the Bristol Exploratory, the United Kingdom's first hands-on science centre. The Exploratory has closed as part of the development of @Bristol, which will incorporate many of its exhibits. Professor Richard Gregory, former director of the Exploratory, is now chairman of @Bristol's science advisory board. We saw an outstanding assembly of hands-on science displays at the Experimentarium in Copenhagen: see Appendix 4. Back

36   We also received evidence from the Satrosphere Interactive Science Centre in Aberdeen (p 397). Back

previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 2000