Science centres are a motley crew – some are museums (like the Science Museum or the Horniman), some are visitor attractions, some are education-based centres specialising in out-of-class learning, (like Hampshire’s INTECH) and some are hybrids of all three.

Science centres are something that we in the UK should be proud of. We didn’t exactly invent them (the Exploratorium in San Francisco is usually thought of as the grandparent of the modern science centre), but we have a long heritage of them and are rather good at them – British science centre workers export their exhibits and expertise around the world. We have bred a diverse and populous ecosystem of them, aided by a Millennium-funded bloom.

Some science centres are large, some are small and some are inbetweeny. The overwhelming majority are not-for-profit, and many live a precarious hand-to-mouth existence reliant on short-term funding and non-core income generation – be that a popular car park, conference venue or gay bar. With the exception of the museums, very few receive Government funding – as they don’t have collections, they don’t count as museums (and so don’t get museum funding), as they are not schools, they don’t get school funding, and weren’t really considered ‘sciencey’ enough for the DTI. (Indeed, until recently, it wasn’t clear which minister was responsible for science centres – the Minister for Science and Innovation in DIUS recently volunteered to take on the role).

But collectively, they are an important part of the science communication landscape, as a set of recent reports by Ecsite-uk, the trade body for science centres, show. And they could be worthy of our (the taxpayers) support.

Today there’s a 3-hour parliamentary debate dedicated to science centres in Westminster Hall in the Houses of Parliament. Westminster Hall debates are for non-legislative debates, a chance for MPs to kick around issues in a constructive, rather than the traditional confrontational, way.

The debate is as a follow up to the inquiry and report by the House of Commons Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee into the funding of science centres. This noted that “Science and discovery centres contribute to the education of young people”, and inspire and encourage them to think outside the box. It noted that many are struggling financially but that that there is a lack of robust evidence that “demonstrates how effective science centres are in terms of their core goals.”

One of the follow-ons from that report was a set of recent reports by Ecsite-uk into the value of science centres.

It makes for interesting reading. Some seems obvious – its no surprise that science centres are popular with children and teachers, and support science curriculum teaching and learning science centres. That’s what they are traditionally seen to do, and what is usually given as a justification for their existence.

But science centres have two less-obvious roles to play too, which I was really pleased to see the Ecsite-uk report flesh out.

Firstly, their role as local focal points for science communication – building links with local researchers in academia and industry, running local dialogue-based events, being a local, visible point of contact.

Secondly, their role as cultural attractions. The report notes centres are popular with adult visitors – even discounting the big museums’ visitor stats, there’s some 7.7million adult visits per year, which compares well with visits to plays or art galleries. Science is, and has to be seen to be, part of British cultural expression. It’s got to be considered part of the fabric of British life that as an adult, you can be interested in sport, history, literature, arts, or science. It’s something the Victorians got right, really (though I’m not calling for a return to ankle-length skirts). I remember in Edinburgh when Our Dynamic Earth opened – a science centre about geology and environmental sciences gently disguised as a visitor attraction. Suddenly it was as acceptable to spend your Saturday afternoon outing exploring science as it was to visit a theme park, art gallery or derelict castle.

That has to be healthy.

Sure, science centres can and should do more, and I acknowledge that not all science centres are great – though London has a bumper crop of decent ones. I still hope that, just as an increasing number of British adults consider it as culturally and socially equivalent to visit a science centre as to visit an art gallery or historic monument, it becomes as acceptable and justifiable to publicly fund a science centre as it does an art gallery or historic monument.