Public Understanding of Science
The Role of Science & Discovery Centres in
the Public Understanding of Science
Short, D.B. and Weis, N.
Abstract
The number of science & discovery centres has grown exponentially over the last two centuries. Science &
Discovery Centres are one of the top five stimuli that influence a career choice in science. Their history,
growth, impact and role in the public understanding of science are discussed.
Introduction
A ‘Science Centre’ or ‘Discovery Centre’ (collectively referred to here as science & discovery centres) can
be thought of as modern alternatives to museums. Whereas museums since their inception have tended
to be more passive collections of objects for the casual visitor to examine by sight alone, science &
discovery centres are more active, hands-on places of learning. Admittedly there has been some blurring
along the lines of these two types of institutions, specifically from the museum quarter, since they both
seek to fill the leisure time of much the same audience. ‘Hands-on’ implies that visitors physically interact
with an exhibit through the majority of the five senses, sight, touch, smell, and hearing (figure 1) (Caulton,
1998).
Figure 1: ‘Hands-on’ learning at Carnegie Science Center (Pittsburgh, USA) (Images courtesy Carnegie
Science Center).
[Editor note: choose one?].
The Royal Society’s 1985 report on ‘The Public Understanding of Science’, whose thesis linked public
understanding to national prosperity, cited ‘hands-on’ activities in museums and science & discovery
centres as ‘promising developments’ (Bodmer, 1985). The latest science & discovery centres have been
described as ‘Third generation museums’ (Friedman, 2010) at the intersection of humanity’s desire to
collect, categorize, experience and understand. Friedman suggests that the changing face of museums
into ‘Centres of Learning’ evolves from the twentieth century ‘hands-on’ educational philosophy of Piaget,
Industrial Exhibitions (e.g. the World’s Fairs and Expositions), and the public’s demand for the
understanding science.
Science & discovery centres vary widely in scale, from very large institutions like the National Museum of
Science and Technology (China) (with 821,000 square feet of exhibits) to very small centres like Helena,
Montana’s Exploration Works (with 3,500 square feet of exhibits) (ASTA, 2011). Funding is achieved by a
combination of public, private or earned income. In North America and Europe the funding is
predominantly earned income with the remainder split between public and private funding (Groves,
2005). The US has led the world in the number of science and discovery centres, having 368 in operation
with a further 9 start-ups likely to open this decade, compared to the UK's 50 (figure 2, table 1).
Normalising these numbers using current population data shows there is approximately one science &
discovery museum for every million people in both the US and UK, creating an opportunity for
comparisons to be made between the two countries.
This article highlights the role of science & discovery centres in ‘free-choice’ learning (interactions with
science outside of formal education) and their contributions to the public understanding of science.
Figure 2: US Science & Discovery centres and map of UK sites by area postcode (2 additional sites
in Northern Ireland). UK legend: Small dot = 1 site, larger dot = 2 sites.
[Note to editor: these should be shown side by side if possible, maybe with recolored dots for
UK]
Country
Opened
Specialty
Web Site (EDITOR: DELETE OR KEEP
DEPENDING ON SPACE?)
England
At Bristol (formerly Exploratory!)
1987
www.at-bristol.org.uk
Bolton Technical Innovation Centre
2006
Catalyst Science Discover Centre
1989
Chemistry
www.catalyst.org.uk
Centre of the Cell
2009
Life Science
www.centreofthecell.org
Eureka!
1992
Horniman Museum and Gardens
1901
Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust
1976
Jodrell Bank discovery Centre
1965
INTECH
2002
www.intech-uk.com
Inspire Discovery Centre
2000’s
www.inspirediscoverycentre.com
Kelham Islands Museum
1982
www.simt.co.uk/kelham-island-museum
Magna Science Adventure Centre
2001
www.visitmagna.co.uk
Museum of Science and Industry
(MOSI)
1969
www.mosi.org.uk
National Maritime Museum and Royal
Observatory
1937
www.rmg.co.uk
National Museums Liverpool
1851
www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk
National Space Centre
2001
Space
www.spacecentre.co.uk
Natural History Museum
1881
Natural History
www.nhm.ac.uk
National Stone Centre
1990
Nowgen
2003
Biomedicine
nowgen.org.uk
Oxford University Museum of Natural
History
1860
Natural History
www.oum.ox.ac.uk
Porthcurno Telegraph Museum
1998
Telecommunica
tions
www.porthcurno.org.uk
Observatory Science Centre
1995
Astrophysics
www.the-observatory.org
Sandford Mill Science Education Centre
1990s
www.eureka.org.uk
Natural History
www.horniman.ac.uk
www.ironbridge.org.uk
Astrophysics
www.jodrellbank.net
www.nationalstonecentre.org.uk
friendschelmsmuseums.btck.co.uk/SANDFO
RDMILL
Sellafield Visitor Centre
NYB
Snibston Discovery Park
1992
www.leics.gov.uk/museums/snibston
Science Alive
2010
www.science-alive.co.uk
Science and Technology Facilities
Council
2007
www.stfc.ac.uk
Science Museum
1857
www.sciencemuseum.org.uk
Science Oxford Live
1985
www.scienceoxford.com
The Center for Life
2000
Life Sciences
www.life.org.uk
The Eden Project
2001
Biomes
www.edenproject.com
The Living Rainforest
1993
Rainforest
www.livingrainforest.org
The Look Out Discovery Centre
1991
The National Marine Aquarium
1998
Marine Life
www.national-aquarium.co.uk
The Observatory Science Centre
2004
Astronomy
www.the-observatory.org
The Royal Institution
1799
www.rigb.org
The Royal Society
1660
www.royalsociety.org
York Archaeological Trust
1972
www.yorkarchaeology.co.uk
Woolsthorpe Manor Trust
2008
www.bracknellforest.gov.uk/thelookoutdiscoverycentre
Isaac Newton
www.nationaltrust.org.uk/woolsthorpemanor
N. Ireland
Armagh Planetarium
1968
www.armaghplanet.com
W5, Belfast
2001
www.w5online.co.uk
Dundee Science Centre
2000
www.sensation.org.uk
Glasgow Science Centre
2001
www.gsc.org.uk
Our Dynamic Earth (Edinburgh)
1999
Geology
www.dynamicearth.co.uk
National Museum of Flight (National
Museums of Scotland)
1975
Aviation
www.nms.ac.uk
Satrosphere Science Centre Aberdeen
1988
Scotland
(Scottish Science Centers Network)
Wales
www.satrosphere.net
British Interactive Group
1992
www.big.uk.com
Centre for Alternative Technology
1973
www.cat.org.uk
National Museum of Wales
(inc. Big Pit, National Slate Museums)
1907
www.museumwales.ac.uk
Techniquest
1986
www.techniquest.org
Table 1: UK Science Centres: A mixture of true ‘science centres’, observatories with learning
areas, and natural history museums. Source: UK’s Association for Science and Discovery Centres
(ASDC), The Association of Science and Technology Centres (ASTC), and The European Network of
Science Centres and Museums (Ecsite).
History and Growth of Science & Discovery Centres
The Scope of Science & Discovery Centres
There are well over 500 science & discovery centres worldwide; every US State has at least one. Science
and discovery centres present scientific ideas through innovative exhibits, demonstrations, and hands-on
experiences for visitors. The subject matters covered by each site have a very broad range. Some centres
focus on a particular branch of science, while some centres combine many branches of science under the
same roof. Notably, some science and discovery centres do not have roofs at all, as outdoor science parks,
such as The Clore Garden of Science (Israel) and Discovery Outdoor Science Park (Illinois, US), are
redefining the central idea of what a science & discovery centre is in Europe and the US.
The Genesis of Science & Discovery Centres
Collections of natural curiosities can be traced back to the third century BCE to Ptolemy’s museum at
Alexandria. The great voyages of exploration of the 16th and 17th centuries, geological surveys and
expositions made collecting natural objects a common endeavour amongst the more privileged classes
(Sheets-Pyenson, 1989). As knowledge and learning began to be disseminated to a wider variety of social
classes, scientific and technological advances permeated daily life at increasing rates. Large-scale
exhibitions and world fairs showcasing the latest inventions and technologies helped to circulate an
understanding, at least to some extent, of novel concepts and machines of the Industrial Revolution.
In many cases the Deutsches Museum in Munich is cited as the impetus of hands-on science and
discovery centres (Danilov, 2010). The museum was formed in part from scientific and technical
expositions in the 1880s. Oskar von Miller, the founder of the Deutsches Museum, rallied support and
funding in order to disseminate an understanding and interest in science and technology to all classes and
ranks of people. Miller began his campaign for the museum in 1903, and construction was underway by
1906; however, this cornerstone of hands-on science and discovery centres was not inaugurated until
1925 due to the First World War. Deutsches displayed collections of artefacts, but also used innovative
exhibits like a cutaway submarine, a walk-through coal mine, working machines, science demonstrations,
and exhibits that were set into motion by visitors.
Similarly the Science Museum of London, having its roots in the Great Exhibition of 1851, opened in 1928.
While the Science Museum initially did not have the everyman aim like the Deutsches, a 'Children's
Gallery' was opened in 1931; the gallery featured interactive exhibits and working models to conjure
children's curiosity for science. Like many early science and technology museums, the Science Museum
was an indirect outcome of an exposition, specifically the Great Exhibition of 1851. After the international
attraction was rather successful, the resulting funds and remaining exhibits yielded the Victoria and Albert
Museum in 1857. Expanding collections in science and engineering created the need for more space,
which were then collectively named the Science Museum.
The Palais de la Découverte in Paris, now known as Universcience, has been another major stepping-stone
in the hands-on science and discovery centre movement. Opened in 1937, encased historical collections
were altogether excluded from the Palais. Students from the University of Paris taught and demonstrated
scientific laws and principles to visitors through active involvement and laboratory-style exhibits. This
marked a newfound educational involvement in science and discovery centres that acts as a supplement
to education rather than a separate entity. The Palais is cited as the model and genesis of 20th century
science & discovery centres because of its educational focus (Friedman, 2010).
These three European predecessors can be seen to have developed as a direct result of globalization and
international competition of the time period (figure 3). Such competition also influenced Museums of
Science and Industry (MoSI) in New York (1930-1951) (Buxton, 2009) and Chicago (1933). In the case of
the New York MoSI, a committee purposefully set out to conduct a study and make a film on the 'new
industrial museums of Europe' (Friedman, 2010). MoSI of Chicago, founded by Julius Rosenwald, was
influenced by his trip to the Deutsches Museum. MoSI inherited some of its exhibits from the Century of
Progress Exposition, which was active at the time MoSI first opened.
The Exploratorium of San Francisco was founded in 1969 by Frank and Jackie Oppenheimer. This
institution's name validates its dedication to innovation, which is evident also by what one experiences
inside of the Exploratorium. There are very few simulations and demonstrations; instead, the visitor must
be actively engaged with exhibits in order to activate them. The hands-on nature of the Exploratorium
was the sole aim of the Oppenheimers from their visits to the early science and discovery museums of
Europe, especially the Deutsches Museum. However, they aimed to set right the glorification of scientists
and instead familiarize visitors with apparatuses and techniques to an extent that encouraged anyone to
make the next scientific breakthrough (Hein, 1990).
The majority of funding for the Exploratorium was from public monies. Modern science centres in the UK
received considerable financial support from charities such as the Sainsbury Trusts and the Nuffield
Foundations, along with government bodies such as the Department of Trade and Industry. The heritage
boom of the 1980s has been described by Butler (1992) as ‘Industrial Archaeology’, the study of the
material remains of Britain’s industrial past. The heritage phenomenon focused initially on transport then
moved to other areas such as aviation (e.g. National Museum of Flight), manufacturing (Sandford Mill),
materials (e.g. Catalyst, Ironbridge Gorge) and energy (Big Pit Museum). These heritage sites have gained
funds from the Heritage Lottery Fund since its creation in 1994. Regardless of whether the source is public
or private, sites focused on industrial, technological, and scientific discoveries and theories are well
supported in many countries.
Figure 3: Influential events in the globalization of science & discovery centres
and their impact on UK sites.
Groves (2005) charted the growth in science and discovery centres for four regions of the world (N.
America, Latin America, Asia and Europe from 1960 to 2004). The chart below (figure 4) shows the
comparative growth between the UK and the US from 1800 to the present. Two distinct eras can be seen
from 1850-1950 and from 1950 to present. There is now at least one science & discovery centre in every
US state. The number of centres increases linearly with state population size with California, New York,
Florida and Texas having proportionately more in line with their higher population densities (figure 5).
Cumulative Total Science Centers
400
300
200
UK
US
100
0
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
2050
Decade
Figure 4: Cumulative total science & discovery centres, US vs. UK
(Criteria: listed ATSC members only).
No. Science & Discovery Centres
40
CA
FL, NY
30
20
TX
10
0
0.E+00
5.E+06
1.E+07
2.E+07
2.E+07
3.E+07
3.E+07
4.E+07
4.E+07
Census Population (2012)
Figure 5: Science & discovery centers vs. US state population.
The demand obviously exists for science centres across many regions worldwide. While there are some
that may struggle with funding, the majority of centres find support through public and private monies
and admission fees in some cases. The subject matters vary widely, but most visitors are interested to
learn about the topics available in their area.
Educational Role of Science & Discovery Centres (in the Public
Understanding of Science)
Conducted annually since 1995, the Bayer Facts of Science Education survey series gauges the public’s
opinion on the state of science education in the United States, support for reform, and the recognition of
the roles that science and science literacy play in everyday life. Their survey ('Bayer Facts,' 1998) of over
1400 scientists lists science museums as one of the top five stimuli that influence a career choice in
science (figure 6). The stimuli included: parents, science teachers/classes, science toys, the media, and
science museums (centres and zoos).
Figure 6: The top five stimuli that influence a career in the sciences (Graphic by David Brous).
Later work by Falk (2002) and Jarrett and Burnley (2003) amongst others (Bulunuz and Jarrett, 2010)
corroborated the idea that the learning of science is multi-faceted and stresses the importance of the
‘free-choice learning sector’, of which science museums play a key role (Ecsite, 2008). With respect to
science & discovery centres in general, research indicates that playful engagement with science during
childhood and youth influences interest in science (Bulunuz and Jarrett, 2010).
“Exhibits require a level of explanation that is neither too superficial nor so complicated to be
incomprehensible, at the same time the intellectual excitement of the scientific process must not be lost”
(Lindqvist, 2000).
Impact of Science Centres
Ecsite, the ‘European Network of Science Centres and Museums’ published a report in 2008 (Ecsite, 2008)
that looked at a collection of studies conducted worldwide. Two important findings of note were:
1) There is significant evidence that interactive science exhibitions increase visitors’ knowledge and
understanding of science.
2) There is significant evidence that science & discovery centres provide memorable learning experiences
that can have a lasting impact on attitudes and behaviour.
The report cites a small number of studies from the UK showcasing the positive impacts on learning of
school students visiting science & discovery centres. ASTC (2002) suggests a further 180 studies
worldwide which showed evidence of impact on learning. Whilst researching this article it has become
quite apparent that the archiving of these studies and their associated data is poor and unreliable.
Performance Measurement Ratios
Science & discovery centres look to visitor numbers, satisfaction, and learning as measures of their
success. Common ‘museum wisdom’ is that most visitors come three times – at the age of nine, then with
a child of nine, and finally with a grandchild of nine’ (Macdonald, 2002). My own experiences would
suggest that this is not true of science & discovery centres since changes in exhibits are not uncommon.
Numbers for repeat visitors per year have never been published.
Based on a 2011 survey with reports from 127 (74%) of its US members, ASTC estimates 65.4 million visits
(on-site and off-site) were made to its member science centres and museums in the US that year, with
around 16% coming from school groups (ASTC, 2011). Specific on-site visitor numbers from ASTC are
available for only three UK centres: At Bristol 208,000 visitors (21% school groups), International Centre
for Life 227,000 visitors (11% school groups), and the National Museum of Science & Industry (now called
The Science Museum Group) 4,146,057 visitors (7% school groups). This last figure is a combination of the
group's five sites and reflects the poor availability of visitor information. The Department of Culture,
Media and Sport (UK) has released more comprehensive data for British Museums (Department of
Culture, Media and Sport, 2012), and gives a figure of 2,921,685 for The Science Museum in 2011 (figure
7).
4.00E+06
Visitors
3.00E+06
2.00E+06
1.00E+06
0.00E+00
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
Figure 7: Department of Culture, Media and Sport data for The Science Museum, London.
Walhimer (2012) has gathered data from the major science & discovery centres worldwide and composed
the ‘World Top 10’ science & discovery centres based on visitor numbers (Table 2).
Site
Country
Visits (2010)
1.
Citi des Sciences et de l’Industrie
(Parc de la Villette)
France
5,000,000
2.
Science Museum
England
2,700,000
3.
Shanghai Science and Technology
Museum
China
2,500,00
4.
National Science and Technology
Museum
Taiwan
2,050,790
5.
Museum of Science and Industry,
Chicago
USA
1,605,020
6.
Pacific Science Center, Seattle
USA
1,602,000
7.
Museum of Science, Boston
USA
1,600,000
8.
Science City, Kolkata
India
1,522,726
9.
Ontario Science Center
Canada
1,509,912
Germany
1,500,000
10. Deutsches Museum
Table 2: Top ten science & discovery centres (visitor numbers) (Walhimer, 2012).
A location specific comparison can be made for ‘the family day trip’, e.g. those visiting a zoo, art gallery,
natural history museum or science & discovery centre. This type of analysis is shown below for both a US
city (Pittsburgh, population 0.3 million) and a UK city (London, population 8 million) (figure 8). It is clearly
evident that science & discovery centres make up a significant portion of the audience for ‘family day
trips’. Unfortunately this data is not readily available for all locations and sites, leaving the comparison to
be of limited value.
UK
London Zoo
Science Museum
The British Museum
Natural History Museum
TATE Britain and Modern Art
Figure 8a: UK: 2011 visitor statistics shows that there were 1x106 visits to the London Zoo, 5.8 x
106 visits to the British Museum, 4.8x106 visits to the Natural History Museum ('Museum
celebrates,' 2011), 2.9 x 106 visits to the Science Museum, and 6.2 x106 visits to TATE Britain and
Modern art galleries.
US
Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium
Carnegie Science Center
Carnegie Museum of Natural History and Carnegie Museum of Art
Figure 8b: US: 1x106 people visited the Pittsburgh (US) Zoo compared to 515,000 visiting
Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Science Center (ASTC, 2011), and 300,000 visiting the shared Natural
History and Art Museums (Carnegie Museums, 2012).
The size of science & discovery centres obviously has an impact on visitor numbers. The size varies from
around 1,000 square feet (Explorit Science Center, California) to over 700,000 square feet (Science
Museum, London). Examining the on-site visitor numbers normalized to their respective size results in
what is called the ‘performance ratio’; this number is on average six visitors per square foot (for 2011)
when analyzed by location or size and increases linearly with increasing operating expense (ASTC, 2011).
Surprisingly the performance ratio for centres around 50,000 square feet does not significantly change
with the size of the centre. For science & discovery centres over 50,000 square feet the performance ratio
may increase to around ten, but in many cases remains less than 2-3 visitors per square foot (Groves,
2005, Fig 8-19). The performance ratio of zoos is generally < 1 due to their sheer size. A more comparative
exercise would be to compare the performance ratios of science & discovery centres to art and natural
history museums.
On average, earned income, which comes primarily from ticket sales and program fees, is the largest
source of operating revenue. Most science & discovery centres charge for general admission (94%), with
adult admission prices ranging from $1 to $30. The median admission charge worldwide is $10.00 (ASTC,
2011).
Very little fan-fare is made of the UK’s free admission policy to museums, including the Science Museum
(London). Free admission indicates a government's investment in the intellectual capital of its people,
almost to be considered an expansion on public education. However, free admission grows more difficult
as the sites become smaller, independent centres attracting fewer visitors due to size and location. Such
science and discovery centres usually need to charge admission to maintain operation. In 1988 the
previously ‘free entry’ Science Museum in London started charging for admission. This policy was changed
in 2001 back to free admission. Visitor numbers rose by 150% when admissions charge was abolished in
2001 (Brown, 2011). In the US the Smithsonian is federally funded, and there are also free private
museums. ‘Museum Day’ is a day when museums hold a free admission day for ticket holders. This may
help to overcome visitors limited by the admission charge of a centre, allowing low-income visitors to
experience what a science and discovery centre has to offer.
Conclusion
Science & discovery centres connect the public with science and allow people of all ages and backgrounds
the opportunity to explore scientific ideas. Over the last two centuries the number and variety of science
& discovery centres has seen significant growth. This has led to more opportunities for exposure to
science experiences for all ages. The reasons behind the growth in numbers is likely to be the fact that a
significant portion of the public, of all ages, find the direct exploration of science entertaining and
interesting.
A significant portion of all lifelong science learning occurs within the expanding free-choice sector, of
which science & discovery centres have become a major component. The public understanding of science,
in other words the idea of ‘scientific and technological citizenship’ (Barry, 2001) centres around
expectations that the individual citizen should be scientifically literate enough to be able to make his or
her own judgments about scientific and technological matters. A scientifically literate society is greatly
enhanced and supported by free-choice learning, and by extension science & discovery centres (Falk,
2002).
The ‘elephant in the room’ aspect of science & discovery centres is the belief that visitors may learn
superficial principles and practices, or if science and discovery centres promote scientific misconceptions,
or even misrepresent scientific ideas (Gregory, 1989). In addition, it has been stated that science &
discovery centres may trivialize science and give the false impression that scientific inquiry leads to
instant solutions, whereas the reality is that science can be slow, tedious, and unspectacular (Shortland,
1987).
It is evident that science & discovery centres play an important role in the public understanding of
science. Opportunities for further research in this area include: (i) the comparison of visitor numbers and
performance measurement ratios of science & discovery centres with other family activities, (ii) visitor
learning outcomes assessment from hands-on activities and exhibits, and (iii) scientist satisfaction with
how science is portrayed at science & discovery centres. Efforts should be made by the various centres
and their associations to make the data and studies more widely available to researchers.
Large centres with a variety of exhibit topics attract multitudes of visitors. Small centres and those with
more specialized focuses also have their fair share of attendees, which shows that there is a public
demand for understanding science and technology across disciplines, cultures, and regions. The realm of
science and discovery centres is continuously expanding. Some of the latest developments include a
move towards outdoor science parks and centres, the worlds only museum of mathematics (MOMATH,
New York), and the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s ‘Science Constellation’. Breaking the boundaries of
indoor exhibits and demonstrations gives much more allowance on size and scope to any given display;
the evolution of science and discovery centres is set to continue into the twenty first century and beyond.
References
Association of Science and Technology Centers (2011) Washington D.C. ASTC Statistics Analysis Package.
ASTC (Garnett) (2002) The impact of Science Centers/Museums on their surrounding communities.
Summary report. Visited: Feb 2013. URL: http://www.astc.org/resource/case/Impact_Study02.pdf
Barry, A. (2001) Political Machines: Governing a Technological Society. Athlone, London.
Bayer Facts of Science Education Survey. (1998) “U.S. Scientists predict Pace of Discovery to Accelerate in
the 21st Century, Survey Says.” Visited: Feb 2013. URL:
http://bayerus.com/msms/MSMS_Education_Resources_Activities/ResourcesSTP/Survey/summary98.asp
x
Bodmer, W. (1985) The Public Understanding of Science. The Royal Society. Visited: Feb 2013. URL:
http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/1985/public-understanding-science/
Brown, M. (2011) National museums double visitor numbers in decade of free entry. The Guardian.
Visited: Feb 2013. URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/dec/01/national-museums-doublenumbers-free-entry
Bulunuz, M. and Jarrett, O.S. (2010) Developing an interest in science: Background experiences of
preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, Vol. 5, No.
1, pp. 65-84.
Butler, S. (1992) Science and Technology Museums. Leicester University Press, Leicester.
Buxton, W.J. (2009) Patronizing the Public: American Philanthropy’s Transformation of Culture,
Communication, and the Humanities. Lexington Books.
Carnegie Museums (2012) "Visitor Data." Visited: Feb 2013. URL:
http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/docs/CMNH_One_Sheeter_2011.pdf.
Caulton, T.J. (1998) Hands-on Exhibitions: Managing Interactive Museums and Science Centres.
Routledge, London.
Danilov, V.J. (2010) Hands-On Science Centers: A Directory of Interactive Museums and Sites in the United
States. McFarland, North Carolina.
Department of Culture, Media and Sport (2012) Visited: Feb 2013. URL:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/oct/01/museum-gallery-visitor-figures-england-data
Ecsite (2008) The Impact of Science and Discovery Centers: A Review of Worldwide Studies. The Science
Center Enrichment Activity Grant Project.
Falk, J. H. (2002) The contribution of free-choice learning to public understanding of science.
Intersciencia, 27(2), pp. 62-64.
Friedman, A.J. (2010) The evolution of the science museum. Physics Today, Vol. 63, No. 10, pp. 45-51.
Gregory, R. (1989) Sharing Science: issues in the development of the interactive science and technology
centres. British Association for the Advancement of Science, London.
Groves, I. (2005) Assessing the Economic Impact of Science Centers on Their Local Communities.
Questacon: The National Science and Technology Center. Visited: Feb 2013. URL:
http://www.astc.org/resource/case/EconImpact-whole.pdf
Hein, H. (1990) The Exploratorium: The Museum as Laboratory. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Jarrett, O. S., and Burnley, P. C. (2003) Engagement in authentic geoscience research: Evaluation of
research experiences of undergraduates and secondary teachers. Journal of Geoscience Education,
Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 85-89.
Lindqvist, S. (ed.) (2000) Museums of Modern Science. Science History Publications, Canton, MA.
Macdonald, S. (2002) Behind the Scenes at the Science Museum. Berg, Oxford.
Natural History Museum (2011). Museum celebrates 10 years of free entry. Visited: Feb 2013. URL:
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2011/december/museum-celebrates-10-years-of-freeentry106432.html
Sheets-Pyenson, S. (1989) Cathederals of Science: the Development of Colonial Natural History Museums
during the late Nineteenth Century. McGill University Press, Montreal.
Shortland, M. (1987) No business like show business. Nature, Vol. 328, No. 6127, pp. 213-214.
Walhimer, M. (2012) 2012 World’s Top 10 Science Centers. Visited: Mar 2013. URL:
http://museumplanner.org/worlds-top-10-science-centers/