A few years ago, the Observer printed a list of essential books but managed to leave off anything about science. It says a lot when a broadsheet newspaper forgets to include such an important topic. Science has such a huge impact on society, but it is often ignored or misunderstood by large sections of the population.
Much of the blame for this has to rest with the media, as the widespread reporting on subjects such as MMR and the 'Frankenstein foods' showed all to well. Politicians are clearly becoming concerned about the fact that less people are studying science: witness the current select committee report into science education.
Last year there were 10,000 fewer students studying chemistry, maths, engineering and biosciences at degree level than in 1999, and a number of universities including Exeter (closing chemistry) and Newcastle (physics) have shut departments.
The head of the Higher Education Funding Council for England said the problem was the lack of demand at degree level, and argued it was an issue that schools needed to address.
Which makes the unevenness of funding to the UK's science museums and science centres all the more worrying. At a time when the EU is making so much of the public understanding of science under the so called Lisbon Agenda, it is ironic that museums and science centres - institutions capable of attracting people to scientific topics - are struggling.
The Science Museum (see opposite) is suffering from the problems that plague many other science museums and science centres: they are expensive to run because they require more interactives than the average museum. And they are expensive to change, but developments and discoveries mean they need to change more than some other museums.
It is a pity that governments in general don't seem to recognise this (although the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Executive have recently decided to revenue fund some science centres). There is great potential for museums to encourage more young people to study science, and to help the general public understand science.
Ecsite UK, the UK arm of the international science centre and museum network, is lobbying MPs this month to make them more aware of the needs of these institutions and the benefits they can provide.
But the problems are not just about funding. Many science museums and science centres need to improve if they are going to fulfil their potential. Some are either so entirely child-focused or so antique that great swathes of the population don't visit.
But for teenagers and adults, as much as children, it can be a great experience to walk into a science gallery, see something intriguing and start to realise it is understandable.
Great objects, great stories: science museums potentially have it all. It would be good if, particularly in this International Year of Physics, this was acknowledged by museums' political paymasters.
Jane Morris, editor
Much of the blame for this has to rest with the media, as the widespread reporting on subjects such as MMR and the 'Frankenstein foods' showed all to well. Politicians are clearly becoming concerned about the fact that less people are studying science: witness the current select committee report into science education.
Last year there were 10,000 fewer students studying chemistry, maths, engineering and biosciences at degree level than in 1999, and a number of universities including Exeter (closing chemistry) and Newcastle (physics) have shut departments.
The head of the Higher Education Funding Council for England said the problem was the lack of demand at degree level, and argued it was an issue that schools needed to address.
Which makes the unevenness of funding to the UK's science museums and science centres all the more worrying. At a time when the EU is making so much of the public understanding of science under the so called Lisbon Agenda, it is ironic that museums and science centres - institutions capable of attracting people to scientific topics - are struggling.
The Science Museum (see opposite) is suffering from the problems that plague many other science museums and science centres: they are expensive to run because they require more interactives than the average museum. And they are expensive to change, but developments and discoveries mean they need to change more than some other museums.
It is a pity that governments in general don't seem to recognise this (although the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Executive have recently decided to revenue fund some science centres). There is great potential for museums to encourage more young people to study science, and to help the general public understand science.
Ecsite UK, the UK arm of the international science centre and museum network, is lobbying MPs this month to make them more aware of the needs of these institutions and the benefits they can provide.
But the problems are not just about funding. Many science museums and science centres need to improve if they are going to fulfil their potential. Some are either so entirely child-focused or so antique that great swathes of the population don't visit.
But for teenagers and adults, as much as children, it can be a great experience to walk into a science gallery, see something intriguing and start to realise it is understandable.
Great objects, great stories: science museums potentially have it all. It would be good if, particularly in this International Year of Physics, this was acknowledged by museums' political paymasters.
Jane Morris, editor
