Written evidence submitted by the International Centre for Life (COM0017)

1. Executive Summary

1.1.         Science centres are a significant group within an increasingly diverse STEM engagement ecosystem.

1.2.         Delivering a STEM-literate workforce and a wider population that is engaged with science and technology requires more than short-term events, information campaigns and formal education.

1.3.         Science centres can deliver the more complex, family-level influences on behaviour around STEM that will be necessary to achieve government objectives.

1.4.         Government policy and practice towards science communication needs to catch up with the increasing professionalization of the field.

1.5.         Government activity around the communication of, and engagement with, science is delivered through multiple departments and agencies with varying levels of experience and expertise.  Coordination within government as well as wider partnerships with external specialists, will improve the impact of this work.

1.6.         National policy objectives can be better achieved through a national network of actors, including science centres, than through centralised campaigns or London-centric institutions.

2. Introduction – The Centre for Life

2.1.         The Centre for Life[1] was one of the Landmark Millennium Projects[2] and consists of a public science centre, a suite of teaching laboratories (“Lifelab”), a life-sciences research campus (occupied by a mix of university and commercial researchers), IVF and genetic health clinics, an ethics research group plus commercial activities (including a conference centre, car park, commercial office space and public entertainment units).  This unusual, and possibly unique, mix of research, public engagement, education and business in the heart of the city gives the science centre both an intellectual context and financial stability for its operations.  Visitor numbers have stabilised at around 250,000 each year, with 35,000 of those being education groups attending formal workshops in Lifelab.

2.2.         We have five major permanent exhibitions in the science centre, along with a live science show theatre, a digital planetarium, a “motion ride” cinema, and a temporary exhibitions hall.  The permanent exhibitions are designed to leave visitors more comfortable around science, more confident in their own abilities and possessing a stronger identification with science.

2.3.         The International Centre for Life is one of the larger post-2000 science centres, and plays a prominent role in the field.  Its Chief Executive is the Chair of the Association of Science and Technology Centers[3], the global body based in Washington DC representing over 650 science centres from over 50 countries, and is a Trustee of the UK Association for Science and Discovery Centres[4].  Senior staff are active in professional networks across the UK, Europe and further afield and collaborate with researchers to help advance the field.  This in-house expertise[5] has been deployed in an MSc in Science Communication[6], delivered in partnership with Northumbria University.  The Trust is submitting evidence to this enquiry to give a voice to the particular form of science communication delivered by science centres.  The evidence below comes from the perspective of a team of informal science learning specialists, based in a regional city, with a mission to make science more engaging and accessible to everyone.

3. STEM Engagement landscape (and trends)

3.1.         Over the last 16 years we have noted an increase in STEM engagement activity[7] that has significantly altered the operating landscape for science centres.  There are many more players in this field[8], from the independent engagement specialists to the ever-expanding engagement and outreach activities of most universities[9].  There is more science and technology on television, only partly as a result of the increased number of channels, and a diverse range of science content is available online from highly interactive educational sites to blogs by individual scientists.  In most major cities there are grassroots groups organising meetings, talks and other social events themed around science[10].

3.2.         As a result of this expansion, there is a larger pool of professionals who describe themselves as “science communicators”, even though their roles may differ widely[11].  Many science communicators tend to think of the field as mostly their own area plus some peripheral activity, whether they are bloggers or broadcasters.  As a result any individual claiming to speak on behalf of science communication should probably be treated with caution.  This broad definition means that to date the field has not developed a single route to certification or validation of professional standards (unlike parallel fields such as teaching or museum curation), despite valiant attempts by the Science for All expert group and others[12].

3.3.         On the positive side, this explosion in STEM engagement creates more opportunities for audiences and provides a culture to which those interested in science can belong.  This sense of identity and shared interests (or “science capital”)[13] is an important factor for nurturing a STEM workforce.  Also, within the expanding corps of engagement practitioners is a new generation who are innovating with different media and working to improve the quality of their output, whether that is in the form of writing, events, performance or exhibition.[14]

3.4.         A less positive observation is that there are an increasing number of practitioners who have observed the work of their peers and are attempting to replicate this without necessarily being aware of how it has been created.  This is particularly true where STEM engagement is being introduced, for example in a university department where there had been little prior history.  There are also commercial entrants to the field, spotting that STEM is a growth area, who may not have much interest or investment in the content they are delivering.  There is a risk that without support, much of this new activity could be of very low quality and be more likely to put participants off science than to attract them to it.[15]

3.5.         Whereas in more mature cultural forms (e.g. musical theatre) it is commonplace to encounter (and purchase tickets for) both amateur and professional performances and understand the difference, science communication is too young to have such discriminating audiences.  An enthusiastic volunteer, an academic doing outreach, an actor performing the role of a scientist, and a full-time science communicator with 20+ years of experience may all be conflated as essentially the same thing. Weaker examples may undermine the whole field purely by being interpreted as representative of the best the field can do.

3.6.         The profession of science communication is still very young, but deserves the same level of attention and respect as the core scientific disciplines.

4. Science Centres’ role(s) in this landscape

4.1.         Science centres as a category are still relatively young, with the form not emerging in the UK until the mid-1980’s and the main expansion being a product of the millennium.  Many science centres occupy major buildings that create the impression of mature institutions but in practice these have been small start-up organisations that are only now maturing to match their external physical appearance.  In the current, expanded STEM engagement landscape science centres have some unique characteristics that define their public role.[16]

4.2.         As the sector has matured, its collective impact has grown.  Over 20million people a year[17] visit science centres in the UK and the majority of the population live within an hour’s drive of a centre.

4.3.         Science centres are grounded in a physical location, often within a landmark building.  They provide a social space that is increasingly an oasis of tactile, physical experience in an otherwise screen-mediated world.  They tend not to be tied to specific content (or collections), but instead develop their activities with reference to learning research, developmental psychology and other relevant disciplines.  Science centres are rarely the primary source for their content (unlike, say, a museum with a collection) so have more subject freedom.  Increasingly they are moving away from the pure “information delivery” model that characterises much science communication, in favour of playing to their strengths – using social experiences to boost participants’ science capital by developing their confidence, capacity and identity around science[18].  In this way they provide both a gateway experience, introducing new generations to STEM experiences[19], but also help to prepare learners for the more formal science experiences they will encounter elsewhere (a process termed “activation”[20]).

4.4.         Science centres are, in England at least, rarely in receipt of revenue funding from public sources.  Most are lean organisations, earning the majority of their own income from a range of commercial activities as well as ticket sales.  There are limited sources of capital income (soon to be supplemented by the BIS “Inspiring Science Capital Fund”) but the major operating cost for science centres, and all professional science communication, is personnel.  Statutory changes to wages and pension provision, along with an ongoing trend for salary costs to grow faster than revenue, point to an uncertain future for some centres.  Expansion into new activities such as increased community engagement should be seen in the context of increasingly stretched budgets.

4.5.         Science centres tend to be independent organisations rooted in their local setting, often reflecting local expertise in their content.  Their strongest relationships reflect the combination of individuals and organisations that were instrumental in their founding.  The next challenge for the sector will be for individual centres to become more fully engaged with all parts of their local communities, beyond their original supporters.

5. Reaching new audiences and serving the “already interested”

5.1.         Engaging new audiences with STEM is not necessarily a process of inspiring and developing new interest, as traditionally thought[21].  Social research is showing that many people in so-called “under-served” communities may already have high levels of interest in scientific topics but experience cultural exclusion from STEM engagement institutions[22].  Museums, science centres, zoos, aquariums and similar STEM activities are often guilty of making assumptions about their audiences that influence content choices, visual representations, programming, marketing, and even recruitment in such a way as to make communities feel unwelcome or excluded.  Improving this situation is likely to be a slow process based on building relationships within communities rather than as a result of specific projects[23].  Science centres are working to be more “present” across their communities, partnering with a variety of local and national groups to be more welcoming, relevant and inclusive to all. 

5.2.         The Centre for Life has embarked upon this journey, much like other science centres.  Successes include an ongoing relationship with local Prince’s Trust organisers[24] and a programme of primary science clubs that grew out of community meetings.

5.3.         Work to grow participation from under-represented groups is a continuous process.  Historically efforts have been part of time-limited projects based on a single funding cycle.  While the specific activities are worthwhile, without long-term support there is a risk that new audiences drift away disenchanted and future initiatives end up addressing “audience churn” rather than building sustainable growth.

5.4.         Research into interests and aspirations around science reveals that low engagement with science (or low “science capital”) is not exclusively a socio-economic issue[25].  There are complexities relating to gender, ethnicity and family history.  An under-recognised facet is that many families with high “cultural capital” (i.e. participation in arts, sport etc.) may still have low science capital due to factors like family habit or geography.  This group offers a “quick win” for science engagement alongside the more difficult long-term work, and the Centre for Life’s experience of events to target such groups suggests that it is possible to introduce arts audiences to science.

April 2016

6. ICFL Strategies for encouraging STEM studies and careers

6.1.         Research from the UK and overseas suggests that the strongest influence on young people’s choices for and engagement with subjects at school is perceived parental and family attitudes[26][27].  We also know from several studies that interest in (and identification with) science emerges in primary school.  Indeed, the children who decide that science is definitely not for them come to this realisation before the age of 10.[28]

6.2.         Our strategy begins with efforts to “normalise” science based activities from a very early age, through pre-school programme, and to continue to involve whole families in STEM activity from then onwards.  This exposes children to their parents expressing positive views towards science.  This makes consideration of the needs of parents in this facilitation role at least as important as the needs of children when we design activities and environments.

6.3.         This application of research knowledge to inform the design of programmes and exhibitions is similar in intention to the work of the Behavioural Insights Team[29], supported by the Cabinet Office and Nesta.

6.4.         More formal activities for schools are designed to incorporate references to careers to help students see the pathways from their current studies to different professional futures.[30]

6.5.         The content of family activities is designed to reflect an authentic picture of how science operates professionally, in contrast to school science (see below).  The importance of uncertainty and creativity in science is emphasised, although we find that this is often more uncomfortable for adults than for children.  Finally we provide opportunities for all visitors to roleplay STEM careers though exhibits and programmes, and for encounters with real researchers through an ongoing Meet the Scientist programme.[31]

7. Dialogue and Consultation

7.1.         Exhibitions are usually considered the core activity of science centres, and there have been several examples of experiments to incorporate dialogue into interactive exhibitions.  We believe that this has stretched the medium beyond comfort, with the resulting exhibits being unsatisfactory for visitors and unable to collect meaningful data.[32]  However, there is another route to dialogue in science centres.[33]

7.2.         Live events offer a mechanism to match content and activities to appropriately engaged and interested audiences.[34]  A dialogue activity, such as a debate or a more complex deliberative process, is unlikely to work as the initial engagement with a topic, but can be a very powerful tool to build relationships between researchers and an engaged public.  Life has a number of vehicles for this sort of activity, from schools-based dialogues to day-long conferences on specific topics (e.g. the “Dementia Matters” day in conjunction with Newcastle University).  For formal consultation exercises, the live event formats offer a timely and authentic interaction for all parties, and the network of science centres across the UK makes this a viable option for bodies seeking to engage a national audience more deeply than is possible through mass media.

7.3.         Science centres are used to working in partnership with local and regional organisations and are available to work with national and governmental bodies as an ad hoc national network.

8. Government Strategies and Actions

8.1.         Government policy on the public understanding of science is currently incomplete.  The most recent policy document dates back to the Coalition government, reissued on 8th May 2015.[35]  It includes actions such as support for national events (British Science Festival and British Science Week), funding for the national academies, monitoring of public opinion (through the Public Attitudes to Science survey) and encouraging increased uptake of science in schools.  Throughout the policy the issue of public engagement with science is framed in terms of information only, and actions are to be delivered only through the most formal channels.

8.2.         We believe the emphasis on formal education (which, in turn, has an emphasis on delivering a set body of information and then testing knowledge of that curriculum) offers an incomplete picture.  A defined curriculum is an essential foundation for the future study and practice of science, but it doesn’t reflect the nature of science as practiced by scientists.  Research science is all about the unknown, not confirming against a list of pre-defined answers.  The so-called “informal” science learning sector, including science centres, is characterised by open-ended exploration and investigation.  This free-choice learning, predominantly in leisure time, is essential to develop self-confidence, capacity and scientific identity which are foundations that formal education can build upon.[36]

8.3.         Recent evidence from the US suggests that the relationship between science education and being able to apply science in everyday contexts (or “applied scientific literary”) is weaker than might be supposed, suggesting that education without a supporting culture is less effective.[37]

8.4.         The growth in STEM engagement activity suggests that the cultural importance of science is becoming recognised, with more people valuing science as an important aspect of their life.  There is, however, an uneven playing field between science engagement and other cultural forms.  Arts and culture have access to financial support for contributing to the cultural health of the nation, while science’s contribution to culture is a side-line to research or education.  The one exception is the Science Museum, which is a national beacon for science engagement but whose resources primarily serve London and the South East and tourists to the capital.  The arguments about the geographical distribution of arts funding apply even more so to the availability of revenue support for science engagement.[38]

8.5.         Finally, we would argue that the commonly-used “pipeline” metaphor is misleading and unhelpful[39].  The implication that any deviation from the ‘one true’ path to research science is a loss or failure leads to a devaluing of careers from science that aren’t directly in science.  We believe it is better to consider multiple pathways through STEM, with many destinations and many steps along the way, which collectively make a full ecosystem.[40]  Some parts are very formal while others act as inspiration and support to build and maintain the formal components.  As with biological ecosystems, all elements are necessary to keep the whole functioning.

9. Recommendations

9.1.         We ask the government to develop a formal policy for the public engagement with science, building upon work under the Coalition government and informed by the latest research and understanding from the field.

9.2.         We encourage the government to consider the whole STEM ecosystem in its planning and funding strategies.  One size rarely fits all, and in the case of STEM engagement there are many specialists (including science centres) who occupy specific niches.  Limiting engagement to functions delivered through a narrow group of national or London-based institutions is less likely to deliver the desired effects than working with appropriate specialists on a case by case basis.  Government departments need a better working knowledge of who is “out there”, particularly the extensive activity beyond London and the South East.

9.3.         We urge the government to recognise the value that professional science communicators add to public engagement initiatives.  While we applaud the value placed on encouraging the research community to engage directly with the public and recognise the importance of first-hand scientific expertise we caution that expertise in research does not necessarily translate into expertise in communication.  The quality and effectiveness of engagement activities can only improve with the involvement of the appropriate communication professionals, selected for their experience with the specific medium (e.g. broadcast, online, performance or exhibition).

9.4.         We would like government support for a programme of training and/or accreditation for science communicators.  While recognising the complexity of this task, we believe it is essential to help those commissioning public engagement activities and to maintain quality standards.

9.5.         Recognising the breadth of the Informal Science Learning field we ask government to consider how to improve the coordination of parallel activity across multiple departments (i.e. BIS, DCMS, DfE, DEFRA, DECC, DoH) that have an interest in a scientifically literate, culturally active population and a sustained STEM workforce.

9.6.         While we welcome the capital support for science centres that is imminent from BIS, in conjunction with the Wellcome Trust, we ask the government to recognise that the principle cost of all science communication activity, including within science centres, is staffing.  This revenue cost falls on the development of new activity as well as the delivery.  It has previously been demonstrated that the whole UK science centre field could be supported for less than the cost of a single national museum.[41]

April 2016