The Science and Technology Select Committee has recommended that the Museums, Libraries and Archives (MLA) accreditation scheme should be adapted to open up funding streams for science centres.
But an MLA spokesman said the idea was "flawed and based on a misunderstanding of accreditation's role".
In the report, The Funding of Science and Discovery Centres, the committee recommended split accreditation that would involve collections maintenance being separated from education and public engagement, with a funding stream created for education and public engagement programmes to which science centres could apply.
The MLA spokesman said: "Accreditation is a nationally agreed scheme for museums to show they are achieving minimum standards. It is not linked to a funding stream. Education activity is the focus of only one limited element within a section on wider user services. How museums care for collections and use them to engage with the public is inextricably linked, and this is recognised in the accreditation scheme."
Rachel Souhami, a lecturer in science communication at Imperial College London, said she thought split accreditation would benefit science centres, but questioned whether museums would be happy about it.
She also raised the problem of what relationship this would create between the MLA and Ecsite-uk, which represents science centres, museums and discovery centres in the UK.
Nick Winterbotham, the chairman of Ecsite-uk, said it was a "great idea", although it needed more work. "Museums might not be so keen, as it would be another draw on the MLA pot," he added.
Winterbotham said regulation was probably a good thing and that he favoured piloting a simplified accreditation system initially.
One model might involve Ecsite-uk managing such a scheme. "It will be a long time before that could become official, but it is great that they [the select committee] are talking to us," he said. "We are engaged in that dialogue and want to take it further."
The report also addresses how science centres would be funded. It recommends a range of income streams, including grants, corporate sponsorship, local support, charitable donations and central government support.
The committee suggested that responsibility for science centres be formally written into the minister for science and innovation's portfolio, but decisions and assessment should be coordinated between the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Although she thought the report was largely positive, Souhami was unconvinced by this recommendation. "Which government department should fund science centres doesn't seem to be clear from the report," she said.
"Even if the case for central government funding were proven, we would still need to know when, how and how much."
But an MLA spokesman said the idea was "flawed and based on a misunderstanding of accreditation's role".
In the report, The Funding of Science and Discovery Centres, the committee recommended split accreditation that would involve collections maintenance being separated from education and public engagement, with a funding stream created for education and public engagement programmes to which science centres could apply.
The MLA spokesman said: "Accreditation is a nationally agreed scheme for museums to show they are achieving minimum standards. It is not linked to a funding stream. Education activity is the focus of only one limited element within a section on wider user services. How museums care for collections and use them to engage with the public is inextricably linked, and this is recognised in the accreditation scheme."
Rachel Souhami, a lecturer in science communication at Imperial College London, said she thought split accreditation would benefit science centres, but questioned whether museums would be happy about it.
She also raised the problem of what relationship this would create between the MLA and Ecsite-uk, which represents science centres, museums and discovery centres in the UK.
Nick Winterbotham, the chairman of Ecsite-uk, said it was a "great idea", although it needed more work. "Museums might not be so keen, as it would be another draw on the MLA pot," he added.
Winterbotham said regulation was probably a good thing and that he favoured piloting a simplified accreditation system initially.
One model might involve Ecsite-uk managing such a scheme. "It will be a long time before that could become official, but it is great that they [the select committee] are talking to us," he said. "We are engaged in that dialogue and want to take it further."
The report also addresses how science centres would be funded. It recommends a range of income streams, including grants, corporate sponsorship, local support, charitable donations and central government support.
The committee suggested that responsibility for science centres be formally written into the minister for science and innovation's portfolio, but decisions and assessment should be coordinated between the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Although she thought the report was largely positive, Souhami was unconvinced by this recommendation. "Which government department should fund science centres doesn't seem to be clear from the report," she said.
"Even if the case for central government funding were proven, we would still need to know when, how and how much."
