Paul Jennings is the chief executive of the Dundee Science Centre
No: Science centres are not just a celebration of our scientific heritage, but their primary function is not one of challenging the benefits or otherwise of science. Science centres do have an important role to play in promoting a wider public understanding of science and encouraging engagement with a science agenda.
The words understanding and engagement are critical to this debate. Before challenging scientific advancements, we need to develop a basis from which to build interest, knowledge, reason and through this, opinion.
A critical view of our formal education system would suggest that many schools are failing our young people in all of the above. In this regard, science centres are an important complement to the classroom.
Children make up a major part of our audience. For primary schoolchildren in particular, a visit to a science centre is likely to be their first science-based interactive experience. We make children feel comfortable about being in an informal learning environment.
The nature of what we do lends itself to engaging interest and reminds me of the many scientists I meet who were inspired by their own early experiences at venues such as the Science Museum. As today, these experiences, were not about challenging science, but still influential in terms of putting many on a path to doing exactly that.
Josh Phillips is the science communication officer at the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester.
Yes: Science has always thrown up ethical dilemmas. Current controversies around stem cells, GM foods and nanotechnology are mirrored in history; vaccination, nuclear weapons, and even the domestic use of electricity aroused strong feeling, and often still do today. When museums exhibit artefacts or tell stories around these subjects, we cannot help but take an editorial position.
Where once we spoke of the public understanding of science, we now increasingly talk of public engagement with science. The public's hopes, fears, and dreams are an integral part of the story of science, and our exhibitions should reflect this.
No other medium immerses its consumers like a museum, and the depth of impact that a good exhibition can have places a significant responsibility on us.
Where there is real uncertainty about the impact that scientific advancement may have, museums should make this clear. Where there is debate, an exhibition should reflect and represent that debate; it should challenge our visitors to think more deeply. We cannot expect to offer pat answers to complex questions.
Museums enjoy a reputation for objectivity and authority far exceeding that of other media. If we become seen as partisan cheerleaders for science, that reputation becomes tarnished.
No: Science centres are not just a celebration of our scientific heritage, but their primary function is not one of challenging the benefits or otherwise of science. Science centres do have an important role to play in promoting a wider public understanding of science and encouraging engagement with a science agenda.
The words understanding and engagement are critical to this debate. Before challenging scientific advancements, we need to develop a basis from which to build interest, knowledge, reason and through this, opinion.
A critical view of our formal education system would suggest that many schools are failing our young people in all of the above. In this regard, science centres are an important complement to the classroom.
Children make up a major part of our audience. For primary schoolchildren in particular, a visit to a science centre is likely to be their first science-based interactive experience. We make children feel comfortable about being in an informal learning environment.
The nature of what we do lends itself to engaging interest and reminds me of the many scientists I meet who were inspired by their own early experiences at venues such as the Science Museum. As today, these experiences, were not about challenging science, but still influential in terms of putting many on a path to doing exactly that.
Josh Phillips is the science communication officer at the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester.
Yes: Science has always thrown up ethical dilemmas. Current controversies around stem cells, GM foods and nanotechnology are mirrored in history; vaccination, nuclear weapons, and even the domestic use of electricity aroused strong feeling, and often still do today. When museums exhibit artefacts or tell stories around these subjects, we cannot help but take an editorial position.
Where once we spoke of the public understanding of science, we now increasingly talk of public engagement with science. The public's hopes, fears, and dreams are an integral part of the story of science, and our exhibitions should reflect this.
No other medium immerses its consumers like a museum, and the depth of impact that a good exhibition can have places a significant responsibility on us.
Where there is real uncertainty about the impact that scientific advancement may have, museums should make this clear. Where there is debate, an exhibition should reflect and represent that debate; it should challenge our visitors to think more deeply. We cannot expect to offer pat answers to complex questions.
Museums enjoy a reputation for objectivity and authority far exceeding that of other media. If we become seen as partisan cheerleaders for science, that reputation becomes tarnished.
