Bimonthly News Journal of the Association of Science-Technology Centers March/April 2005

* A Gleaming Tower on a Mountain:Developing a Legislative Agendaand Making It Happen

* Growing Toward a Science Center:The Flanders Model

* Thoughts on Representing the Field

TheArt ofTheArt of

* Working with Lawmakers:Lessons from the Grassroots

* On the Ballot:Letting the People Decide

* ECSITE–UK:Britain’s Science Center Advocate

WINNING PUBLIC SUPPORT

Advocacy:Advocacy:

Bimonthly News Journal of the Association of Science-Technology Centers

Bonnie VanDornExecutive Director

Wendy PollockDirector of Research, Publications, andExhibitions

Carolyn Sutterfield Editor

Christine RuffoResearcher/Writer

Shirley GainesPublications Assistant

Editorial Advisors

Bill BoothCOSI Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.

Gail BeckerLouisville Science Center, Louisville, Kentucky, U.S.A.

Brigitte CoutantLa Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie,Paris, France

Graham FarmeloScience Museum, London, U.K.

Preeti Gupta New York Hall of Science,Queens, New York, U.S.A.

Nohora Elizabeth HoyosMaloka, Bogotá, Colombia

Erik JacquemynTechnopolis, the Flemish Science Centre,Mechelen, Belgium

Christine ReichMuseum of Science, Boston, Massachusetts,U.S.A.

Susan WagemanThe Tech Museum of Innovation,San Jose, California, U.S.A.

Contributors

Greg AndorferAlan J. FriedmanBill GilmartinJean-François HebertBrenton HoneymanErik JacquemynTom KrakauerDouglass W. McDonaldFientje MoermanMelanie QuinKathryn D. SullivanGillian Thomas

ASTC Dimensions (ISSN 1528-820X) is published six times a year by the Association of Science-Technology Centers Incorporated, 1025 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 500,Washington, DC 20005-6310, U.S.A. Copyright ©2005 the Association of Science-Technology Centers Incorporated. All rights reserved. ASTC Dimensions is printed on 45 percent recyled paper, with environmentally friendly inks.

ASTC Dimensions is intended to keep member institutions apprised of trends, practices,perspectives, and news of significance to the science center field. Each ASTC member receives five free copies of an issue as a benefit of membership. Individual and bulk subscriptions are also available. For employees of ASTC-member institutions, the annualrate is U.S. $35; $45 outside the United States. For all others, the price is $50; $60 out-side the United States. Send name, address, name of institution, and payment in U.S.dollars to ASTC, 1025 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005-6310,U.S.A., Attn: ASTC Dimensions. For more information, call 202/783-7200 x140, or e-mail pubs@astc.org. ALTERNATIVE FORMATS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST.

Readers are encouraged to submit news items and ideas for articles. Contact CarolynSutterfield, editor, 202/783-7200 x130; e-mail csutterfield@astc.org. For editorial guide-lines, visit www.astc.org.

IN TH IS I SSUE March/April 2005

Strong public support for science centers and museums should be a given.With science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) high on government priority lists, and legislators worldwide eager to improve STEMeducation, strengthen science and technology workforces, and boost nationaleconomies, it seems logical that ASTC members would receive a goodly shareof public monies. But how do we get our message across in the face of largeand powerful competitors? In this issue, for which ASTC government andpublic relations director Sean Smith served as co-editor, we look at advocacystrategies that have proved effective at local, state, and national levels; examinethe risks and rewards of taking one’s case directly to the voters; and considerour larger role in the public forum as proponents of lifelong science learning.

FeaturesA Gleaming Tower on a Mountain: Developing a Legislative Agenda and Making It Happen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Working with Lawmakers: Lessons from the Grassroots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6What Your Legislator Wants from You . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Growing Toward a Science Center: The Flanders Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8On the Ballot: Letting the People Decide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10ECSITE-UK: Britain’s Science Center Advocate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Thoughts on Representing the Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

DepartmentsCalendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16ASTC Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Spotlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Grants & Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Cover: From volunteers at the polls to behind-the-scenes relationship building in the statelegislature to nationwide outreach programs, effective advocacy for public support callsfor strategies at all levels. Photos, left to right: tax levy campaign volunteer Helen Black, courtesy Cincin-nati Museum Center at Union Terminal; the Maryland State House, Annapolis, courtesy Maryland Office ofTourism Development; an F.T.I Foundation science festival, courtesy Technopolis, the Flemish Science Centre

ASTC Dimensions • March/April 2005 3

Developing a Legislative Agenda and Making It Happen

By Greg Andorfer

Flashback, the Arizona desert. A formercolleague, now the head of the Phoenixpublic television station, is showing mearound. As we drive through the city, Icomment on a giant tower that sits atop a far mountain ridge like a lone sequoia.He smiles and says, “That’s mine.”

What is it for? I ask. “Well, we needed to get our signal into the nextvalley, over the ridge, where all the newviewers are—and members and contribu-tors and big gifts.”

That must have cost a lot, I venture.“No,” he replies. “It’s already paid for.”

Impressed, I can’t help inquiring howhe could afford such a project. “Thestate,” he tells me sternly, surprised bymy naïveté. “What are legislators for, ifnot to bring money back to their districtsand constituents?”

television stations, as well as fundingfor the major part of the core PBSprogram schedule. Towers, of all kinds,can make a difference.

After a 22-year career in publicbroadcasting, I moved to Baltimore in 1996 to head the Maryland Science Center (MSC). As executivedirector and CEO, my charge was tohelp articulate and execute a board-driven vision to renew the 200-year-old institution (originally theMaryland Academy of Sciences) at itscurrent Inner Harbor site.

Board chairman Tom Bozutto, aprominent Maryland developer, hadset the daunting goal of making MSCthe “best science center in the coun-try.” Staff and trustees (and eventuallythe community) were determined toget there. But first we needed to workon capacity-building.

Along with envisioning what MSCcould and should be, we needed todecide how we would plan, how wewould find supportive partners for thelong run, and, most importantly, howwe would gather the extraordinaryresources to complete a $34.5 millionexpansion project. I knew that fund-raising at a science center would bemore challenging than it had been at

That gleaming transmissiontower was my introduction tothe symbiotic relationship

that exists between communities andinstitutions that depend on publicsupport for their important projectsand the legislators who, empoweredby the public, help to provide re-sources for those projects.

Indeed, the Public BroadcastingService (PBS) itself began as a legisla-tive response to a perceived need forquality products in a “vast wasteland”of network programming. Think ofthe wonderful PBS programs thathave ensued. Today, Congress appro-priates nearly $400 million a year forthe Corporation for Public Broad -casting, ensuring a healthy annual operations subsidy for most public

A Gleaming Tower on a Mountain:A Gleaming Tower on a Mountain:

Greg Andorfer, right, meets with U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland andEdward St. John, vice chair of the Maryland Science Center board and head ofthe building committee, to discuss plans for the expanded science center. Theexpansion, inset, was completed in 2004.

Phot

os cou

rtesy

Mar

ylan

d Sc

ienc

e C

enter

4 March/April 2005 • ASTC Dimensions

PBS. A key factor would be enhancedgovernment advocacy at the local,state, and federal levels.

Success on the home front

At MSC, public advocacy skills weresomewhat rusty. In the mid 1970s,the General Assembly in Annapolishad supported efforts to build the science center on the emerging InnerHarbor, and in the mid ’80s MSChad gone back to the state for help inconstructing an IMAX theater. Thatwas almost the sum total of the insti-tution’s capital lobbying experience.

This time, we needed a truly pro-fessional effort. I rehired a respectedMaryland lobbyist to help staff andboard develop a new legislative agen-da. Our first priority was to cultivatesupport from the executive branch.(In Maryland, the governor, not thelegislature, sets the capital budget.)We were fortunate that Tom Bozzutohad worked closely with then gover-nor Parris Glendening and his chiefof staff. A meeting was arranged.

Our initial request was to be for$8 million. But the night before, Ihad a gut instinct that the figure wastoo low. I called my chairman. “Let’sbe bold,” I said. “Let’s ask the state to pay for the building costs: $20 mil-lion, clean and simple.” He agreed.The next day, although we didn’t getas much as we asked, we did get $16 million—doubling our moneyovernight. Without the generosity ofMaryland’s executive branch (now including current governor RobertEhrlich), I believe we could not havecompleted our campaign on time.

Next we focused on the GeneralAssembly. It took six years, with asmany as 15 trips to Annap olis peryear, to develop strong relationshipswith individual legislators, especiallythose who served on relevant appro-priations committees. We began withchairs and co-chairs, whose seniorityand influence helped tremendously.We learned to strengthen our pitchesby matching them to the careers, legislative backgrounds, and commit-tee interests of specific legislators.

To communicateMSC’s commitmentto all of Maryland’scitizens, not justthose in Baltimore,we loaned travelingexhibits to legislativedistricts across thestate, from theChesapeake Bay toWestern Maryland.We also did a num-ber of special eventsstatewide. And whenwe aligned our pro-grams with the statecurriculum, understate superintendentof schools NancyGrasmick, wejumped to anotherlevel, one that maylead to more annualoperating support.

Two General Assembly memberswould prove espe-cially helpful to ourcause. One, a former high schoolprincipal, talked to us about how tocapture and keep students’ interest inscience. The other, a former scienceteacher, loved our plan for a physicsexhibition, Newton’s Alley, that wouldreach across age ranges with a mix of experiences. Their enthusiasm provedcontagious, and the governor’s $16 million budget request passed inboth houses.

On the local level, we were equallyactive. We visited Baltimore’s CityHall and held luncheons at MSC fortwo mayors and for directors of cityagencies. We testified before the citycouncil (several of whose membersnow serve as MSC trustees) and ledwalkthroughs for department heads.

The result was that the city votedus $4.7 million in bond money, ap-proved by the citizens in two electioncycles, and also lived up to a 26-year-old commitment to sell MSC an acreof land for “future expansion” for $1.New language inserted in a state billby a sympathetic legislator allowed usto value this land for millions of dol-

lars and use that as“matching funds”against state bond appropriations, thushelping our cash flow.

As it turned out,our plans called forbuilding over a criticalsewer line, at consid-erable replacementcost. Here, too, thecity was generous. Asupportive departmenthead ruled that it wastime for an upgrade,and the city paid forthe repair. The goodrelations MSC built inBaltimore are still atwork, helping to secure support for amuch needed parkinggarage nearby.

All of these expe -riences reinforced thelesson that legislativesuccess is a symbioticpartnership. MSC

found enthusiastic support from public executives and legislatorsthroughout the state as we presentedour case for broadly enhancing science and technology education.This kind of contribution is easy for people to endorse because it links not only to education but also toeconomic development and growthand the health of the workforce. New buildings are a visible sign ofprogress, and legislators are proud ofwhat they bring home, or help tocreate, for the greater common good.

Taking our case to Washington

The final item on our legislativeagenda was federal dollars. Early on inthe campaign, we began discussionswith one of Maryland’s U.S. senators,Barbara Mikulski, a staunch nationalcham pion of science and technology.Sen. Mikulski has been instrumentalin appropriating annual funding forthe National Science Foundation(NSF) and the National Aeronauticsand Space Administration (NASA).

In MSC’s new Dino saur Mysteriesgallery, Maryland’s own Astrodonjohnstoni, pursued by a meat-eating contemporary, heads forthe Baltimore skyline.

ASTC Dimensions • March/April 2005 5

For years, she has looked after NSF’sInformal Science Education (ISE) program, which provides monies forpermanent and traveling museum exhibitions, IMAX films, communityprograms, and science programmingon PBS. For her efforts on behalf ofscience centers, Sen. Mikulski wasnamed an ASTC Fellow in 2003.

In support of MSC’s expansion, the senator helped the science center obtain nearly $1.4 million for anearth-science-focused partnership withMaryland’s NASA Goddard Research Center. She was also kindenough to help us thank a corporationfor their major gift to the campaign;soon after, they quadrupled the gift.

Working to maintain current fed eralresources and create new ones is a key priority for ASTC, as it is forMSC. The efforts of ASTC and mu -seum leaders, working with congres-sional leaders like Sen. Mikulski andRep. John Porter (see “A HealthyStrategy Pays Off,” right) and theirstaffs, have raised the appropriationsfor programs like ISE and the Nation-al Institutes of Health’s Science Edu-cation Partnership Awards (SEPA) —“seed corn” for high-quality sciencecenter projects. Along with supportingthis advocacy, MSC has been fortunateenough to win federal support formost of its competitive proposals.

My experiences in public televisionand at the science center have shownme that there are committed partnersand pots of money ready to help science communicators convey thewonder and efficacy of science andtechnology in many media.

Around the world, science centersare cultivating and winning supportand cooperative agreements from localand regional governments. Does thefield have the political clout to achievemore? Why not try? There are a lot ofgleaming towers out there, just waitingto be built. ■

Gregory Andorfer, former executive directorand CEO of the Maryland Science Center, is now a consultant and head ofStardust Visual, a production company. Hecan be reached at gandorfer@aol.com.

In the late 1990s, MarylandScience Center was part of a consortium of nine

museums developing a newtraveling exhibition, TheChanging Face of Women’sHealth (see Spotlights, ASTCDimensions, September/October 2000). This cutting-edge project was launchedwith a Centers for DiseaseControl (CDC) grant and se-cured with additional moniesfrom the National Institutesof Health (NIH). MSC was the consortium’s

lead institution, and shortlyafter I arrived in Baltimore I recommended to the otherpartners that we commit toraising twice the amount ofmoney we had originally thought we would need. If my years in public television had taught me anything, it was that only a nationwide reach cansecure for a project the resources needed to do things right and to pay foreffective marketing. Not all of the directors saw the need, but they agreedto let me try. A former PBS colleague signed on to coordinate national fund-raising.

Because of the project’s focus and reach, we were able to secure major additional grants from Pfizer and the Metropolitan Life Foundation, both ofwhich were then directing resources toward women’s health. As a bonus, the new grants generated considerable overhead and local promotional dollars for the partners.

Women’s Health opened in 1999. About that time, the U.S. Congress was on track to double the NIH budget from $15 billion to $30 billion overfive years. I met with ASTC executive director Bonnie VanDorn. ASTC hadpreviously contacted the program officer in charge of the Science EducationPartnerships Award (SEPA) program at NIH’s National Center for ResearchResources (NCRR), but nothing had come of the overture. With NIH now inline to get “billions and billions,” could science centers tap into these new resources? Could the success of the Women’s Health project help us to advocate for new competitive funds at NIH? ASTC seized the opportunity. Bonnie, ASTC government relations director

Ellen Griffee, and a number of museum directors met with NIH officials tolearn more about that organization’s culture. We found an ally in NCRR direc-tor Judith Vaitukaitis, who accepted an invitation to address a session at theASTC Annual Conference. Surrounded by enthusiastic museum directors, sheremarked that she “didn’t know the science center field was so vigorous.” On Capitol Hill, we met with House and Senate appropriations committee

staff. We knew we were on the right track when House Appropriations chair-man Rep. John Porter of Illinois spoke to us of not leaving the American pub-lic “out of the equation” at NIH. With our proposed report language andbacking from Vaitukaitis, SEPA got a $14 million funding increase in 2000.As one of the first-year science center awardees, MSC used its $1.6 mil-

lion SEPA grant to create BodyLink, a Health Update Center, in partnershipwith John Hopkins Medical System. To date, some 20 ASTC members havedirected or participated in SEPA grant projects, and the resulting programsand exhibits have offered millions of museum visitors the opportunity to engage with exciting, cutting-edge health science research.—Greg Andorfer

A Healthy Strategy Pays Off

Developed by a consortium of museums, TheChanging Face of Women’s Health helpedmake the case for increased federal funding ofscience centers. Photo courtesy Maryland Science Center

6 March/April 2005 • ASTC Dimensions

When I came to Durham,North Carolina’s Muse-um of Life and Science

(MLS) in 1985, state support for science centers and museums wasidiosyncratic and sporadic, consistingprimarily of funds “earmarked” forspecial projects by local legislators.Over the next few years, my institu-tion worked with eight others in thestate to win annual funding for allscience museums. The evolution ofthat lobbying group, known as theGrassroots Science Museums Collab-orative (GSMC), was described byTodd Boyette and Mark Sinclair in“From the Grassroots Up,” an articlein the May/June 2001 issue of ASTC Dimensions.

Today, GSMC includes 22 muse-ums, with annual state funding ofmore than $3 million. The group hasa $1 million endowment for programsupport and employs an executive director, Fran Nolan, to attend General Assembly sessions and rele-vant committee meetings in the statecapital, Raleigh; build relationshipswith legislative staff; and appriseGSMC members of actions taken andlocal efforts needed. Because GSMCinstitutions are lo cated all over NorthCarolina, the collaborative now haslegislative allies throughout the state.That is real strength.

What lessons did GSMC teach usabout government advocacy? I canthink of two that apply to legislativeaction at all levels: “Build your friend-ships before you need them” and“Bad things happen when you arenot in the room.” Both recognize that legislative action has to beginlong before politicians go into session,and that success is as much about relationships as it is about substance.

Nurture alliancesOften we are so busy with the immediate that we ignore what is really important. Efforts to cultivatepublic funding should be just as intense as efforts to cultivate privatedonors—the potential return is notonly greater, but annual.

Developing strong relationshipswith legislators is not rocket science,but it does take year-round attention.Here are some suggestions: • Build bridges to all. The morningafter election day, send congratula -tory notes to the winners and notesof appreciation to the losers, thank-ing them for their service to thecommunity. Why the losers? Becausethe pendulum may swing, and they’llbe back in the legislature.

• Get involved locally.Your participa-tion in your local chamber of commerce and public schools canhelp ensure that museum funding is apriority when those groups draw uptheir legislative agendas.• Make your efforts visible. The mem-bers of GSMC cooperate in an annual Legislative Day in Raleigh.On that day, different mu seums set updisplays at the General Assemblybuilding to demonstrate their pro-grams and capacity for statewide serv-ice, including projects that involveunderserved populations.

Working with LawmakersLessons from the Grassroots

By Tom Krakauer

Scenes from a GSMC Legislative Day:(clockwise from top left) SciWorks directorBev Sanford (left) greets Forsyth Countyrepresentative Earline Parmon; Natural Science Center of Greensboro naturalistRick Bolling, with scaly friend, chats withrepresentative Maggie Jeffers (left) ofGreensboro County; Todd Boyette, presi-dent and CEO of The Health Adventure,pays a call on a legislative staffer. Thisyear’s GSMC Legislative Day is scheduledfor April 13. Photos courtesy Fran Nolan/GSMC

Working with Lawmakers:

ASTC Dimensions • March/April 2005 7

• Cultivate a champion. Because every-one in the legislature votes, you needmany friends there. But to be trulysuccessful, you need one particular“champion,” a legislative leader fromyour district who will support yourfunding from beginning to end andwho will fight for you when last-minute deals are struck. Identify thatindividual and ask for his or her commitment to your cause. As a collaborative, GSMC has been able towin two champions—one in the stateSenate, and one in the House of Representatives.

Stay connectedState legislators look after their ownconstituents. Unless you are in theirdistrict, your appeal may fall on deafears. Even then, being a field trip destination is not enough to justifyfunding; you have to show that whatyou do is directly related to legislativegoals. Education priorities changefrom year to year. In some years, thefocus may be on teacher professionaldevelopment; in others, it’s aligningprograms to state standards.

Here are some pointers for ensur-ing that your institution is “in theroom” when legislators meet:• Pay attention to committee structures.When a school group from a key legislator’s district visits your museum,take a photograph and send a “lovenote.”• Be generous. Give your business cardto a key legislator’s administrative as-sistant, and invite that person to bringhis or her family to the museum forfree. More than once, this friendlygesture has got me in to see a senatorwhose door was closed.• Work through professionals. Considerhiring a lobbyist to tell your story, or, if a member of your board representsa major regional employer, make useof his or her corporate legislativeliaison.• Shade your language appropriately. Befamiliar with legislative priorities, andprovide coherent messages on whatyou have to offer—be it early child-hood education, teacher professionaldevelopment, or statewide program-

What Your Legislator Wants from You

By Bill Gilmartin

Meeting with your state legislator ormember of Congress on pending

issues can be daunting. There are, how ever, simple suggestions and guide-lines that can help you com municateyour message successfully and persuadeyour representative to adopt your posi-tion. Here are 10 tips on how to makethe best use of your face-to-face time.

BEFORE THE MEETING• Write a letter. An original one- or two-page letter from a con sti tuent—clearly laying out what the writer is promoting, requesting, opposing (and thanking the legislator in advancefor his or her response)—will get promptattention. • Do your homework. Is your representative in a position to help youachieve your goal? Does he or she serveon a relevant committee? Has he or sheexpressed interest in—or opposition to—your particular issue?• Follow the legislative schedule.In the U.S. Congress, for example, consideration of funding issues begins with submission of the president’sbudget request in early February; appro-priations bills are written in spring andsummer. Schedule your appointment accordingly.• Keep the agenda short. One, two, orthree items is reasonable; more is just alaundry list.

AT THE MEETING• Keep your group small. Three or fourpeople is a manageable number. Haveone person lead the discussion from yourside and keep the conversation on point.

• Establish your credentials. If your legislator is on good terms with one of your board members, mention that.Provide a brief history of your organi -zation and its contributions to the community.• Make your case succinctly. Illustrateyour request with relevant facts, figures,and anecdotes. Don’t expect that yourrepresentative will agree with you oneverything; anticipate and be preparedfor objections. Keep your responsesgeared toward local impact.• Be clear about what you are asking.Do you want your legislator to support aparticular program at the highest fundinglevel? To write a letter of support to acommittee chair? Or, if he or she is thechair, to include your position in a com-mittee recommendation? Try to leavewith as specific a commitment for actionas possible.

AFTER THE MEETING• Stay in touch. Follow up with a thank-you letter that summarizes your pointsand the outcome of your meeting. Invitethe representative and/or staff to visityour facilities; add his or her office to yournewsletter mailing list or send updates on your activities. Offer yourselfas the “go-to” source in your field.• Credit your representative’s efforts.Schedule an event that spotlights the impact of public policies and/or fundingand invite your legislator to speak. Acknowledge those in attendance, aswell as other supportive legislators whocould not be present.

Bill Gilmartin, a former legislative stafferon Washington, D.C.’s Capitol Hill, isASTC’s lobbying consultant.

ming in some key area. The fact thatMLS had sponsored Pi Day math programming, developed with NSFfunding, in science centers statewidegained us credibility with legislators.

You know that your institution isdoing good work. Let officials

and legislators know how that workcan support their priorities, and youwill be able to increase your govern-

mental funding as a part of your development efforts. ■

Museum consultant Tom Krakauer is presi-dent emeritus of the Museum of Life andScience, Durham, North Carolina; he canbe reached at tkrakauer@mindspring.com.To learn more about the Grassroots ScienceMuseums Collaborative, visit www. grassroots-science.org/, or contact FranNolan, fran.nolan@ncmail.net.

Growing Toward a Science Center:

8 March/April 2005 • ASTC Dimensions

Technopolis, the Flemish Science Centre, was conceivedin collaboration with the

government of Flanders—one of three semi-autonomous regions ofBelgium—and continues to be oper-ated in close conjunction with thatgovernment. The formula works be-cause both partners believe strongly inthe goal of increasing science literacy.

The reasons for the Flemish govern-ment’s interest in promoting scienceand technology are perhaps obvious(see “A Pillar of Science and Innova-tion Policy,” by vice-minister-presidentFientje Moerman, page 9). But whywould it choose to do so through ascience center? The answer is that a sci-ence center was not the primary goalof the government, but rather the logi-cal culmination of a carefully developed process.

Step by step for science

In the early 1980s, Flanders was expe-riencing a period of economic crisisand high levels of unemployment. Inresponse, the minister-president of thefirst independent Flemish government,Gaston Geens, initiated a plan to integrate the Third Industrial Revolu-tion—the emerging information society, new materials, and gene tech-nology—into the regional economy.One element of this plan would be abiennial “Flanders Technology Inter -national” (F.T.I) fair.

The first F.T.I fair, held in Ghent in1983, was a real eye-opener, present-ing a world of different technologiesto both professionals and the generalpublic. By the third fair, in 1987, theevent was drawing 200,000 visitors aweek. In 1988 the government estab-lished a permanent structure aroundthe fairs, the F.T.I Foundation, and

gave it the mission of bringing scienceand technology closer to the people.

Large events can help to changepopular opinion, but continual aware-ness is better. In 1992, Flanders’ secondminister-president, Luc Van den Brande,endorsed an F.T.I Foundation proposalto augment its fair with on going activi-ties, such as a science festival, a scienceweek, science theater, and an itinerantscience truck—each tailored to a dif-ferent target group, but in a coordinat-ed way and always with an element ofsurprise and pleasure. The overall mes-sage was to be one of enjoyable chal-lenge and personal style: “Science iscool. Science is fun. Science is smart.”

Thus was Flanders introduced towhat the science center world knowsas “outreach,” but with a key omis-sion—there was no identifiable insti-tution to do the reaching out. Peoplegot interesting messages, but from ananonymous source, a department withan incomprehensible name. Market-ing-wise, this was not the best situa-tion. So in 1997 the governmentvoted to create a visible focus, a flag-ship amid the fleet of science initia-tives, integrating them all as differentproducts from the same brand.

As a tangible place where the pub-lic could experience the science that

permeates their daily life, Technopoliswould become the standard bearer foradvancing public understanding of science in a way that the immaterialF.T.I Foundation had never been orcould be. At the same time, the sci-ence center would benefit from thefoundation’s inherent flexibility andwealth of experience. The F.T.I direc-tors include a former minister-presi-dent of Flanders, the president andone of the members of the founda-tion’s scientific committee, a secretarygeneral of the science administration, aformer minister of budget and sciencepolicy, a former minister of the treas-ury, and the former president of theboard of an important bank.

The path to success was not alwayssmooth. Freeing 15.5 million euros ingovernment money for constructionwas a challenge, and it was even moredifficult to convince those concernedthat their initial investment needed tobe followed up, year after year, by asufficient working grant. Followingthe 1999 elections, a new Flemishgovernment moved to restructure thegovernment administration and theorganizations emanating from it. Tech-nopolis, still under construction, hadto adapt to new ways of cooperationwith the government. The F.T.I Foun-

The Flanders ModelBy Erik Jacquemyn

Opened in 2000, Technopolis(left) is the visible standardbearer of the F.T.I Foundation’smission. Above: Visitors listento Sounds of the Lung, anexhibit at the Flemish sciencecenter. Photos courtesy Technopolis

ASTC Dimensions • March/April 2005 9

dation started talks with the new min-ister, Dirk Van Mechelen, and was inthe meantime asked to organize hisnew initiative: the Day of Technology.

Despite these setbacks, the first visitors entered the new science centeronly 625 working days after the gov-ernment decided to create it. ThatTechnopolis got off to a flying start wasdue not only to 17 years of advancework on public understanding of science and the strong reputation ofthe F.T.I outreach projects, but also toadvice and cooperation from sciencecenters around the world.

Another factor in our success hasbeen the science center’s “Trojanhorse” approach: Each experience isdesigned to be easily digestible, oftenwith an unexpected “aha” outcome.The science may not be evident im-mediately, but it is always present—akernel of knowledge enrobed in Bel-gian chocolate, one might say. Togetherwith the joy, the science slips in.

Efficient, effective, and accountable

The Flanders story, then, is one of asmall region with limited means usingits resources wisely to promote scienceliteracy. Only from a series of coordi-nated government actions did theneed for a flagship gradually emerge.When it did, the science center projectwas able to win (and sustain) supportbecause the F.T.I Foundation for yearshad ploughed the field.

In marketing terms, the decisionmakers in Flanders gradually saw theneed for a “core product” that wouldunite and synergize a series of “sideproducts,” concentrating marketing efforts and communication in one“brand.” Many science centers hadopened in Europe in the early 1990s,but it was years before they startedtheir outreach activities. In Flanders ithappened the other way around.

This strategy has proved efficient,effective, and persuasive. At the urgingof the Dutch minister of education,Maria van der Hoeven, this model ofscience center as central coordinator isnow being copied by the government

of the Netherlands in its “Delta Plan”for advancing the public understandingof science. From a time-honored rival,the compliment is gratifying.

In 2003 the F.T.I Foundation signeda five-year agreement with the Flemishgovernment regarding continued sup-port for Technopolis. In it are formu -lated different mid-term goals, a plan ofwork, and 20 performance indicators—measurable things such as the percent-age of working exhibits, the number of

new exhibits per year, the number ofvisitors traveling more than 1 hour tothe center, and so on—that define thebonus (or the penalty) on the yearlygrant. In the first year, Technopolisscored 20 out of 20. ■

Erik Jacquemyn is CEO of Technopolis,the Flemish Science Centre, and managingdirector of the F.T.I Foundation. He is alsoa member of ASTC’s board of directors andan ASTC Dimensions editorial advisor.

By Fientje Moerman

In today’s worldwide knowledge econ omy,innovation and creativity most oftenmean scientific innovation and creativity.

Without a sound scientific base, a country’sindustry will crumble, the gross nationalproduct will evaporate, and people will sinkinto poverty. No government can bear that. In Flanders, our base materials are

knowledge and know-how. If we want tomaintain our wealth and welfare, we mustinvest in our only mineral: gray matter. Wemust inspire our young people to studyscience and to choose science careers. That effort will cost money, andthe results will be apparent only after along time. But it is more than an econ -omic investment; it is also an investmentin democracy. Not only does Flandersneed new scientists; we also need a general public that understands the technologies that shape our lives, fromthe Internet to gene technology. Peoplemust be able to make informed socialchoices on issues like nuclear energy,cloning, and climate warming. In its action plan on the popularization

of science, technology, and innovation,the Flemish government works with a few key structural partners. The F.T.I Foundation is one of these pillars. Of the9 million euros allotted in the Flemishbudget for the advancement of the publicunderstanding of science, 3.5 million goesto the F.T.I Foundation for Technopolisand its outreach programs. The Flemish administration and Tech-

nopolis are also co-founders of the Advancement of the Public Understandingof Science Network. Technopolis workswith science book publishers and special-ized centers, such as observatories andzoos, and takes part in initiatives for target

groups like “Youth and Science.” As minister, my role is to provide a

workable and integrated framework forgovernment and other initiatives and tocatalyze interaction between all actors. I give special attention to schoolchildren, a group highly interested in science andtechnology. If that interest is to result in ahigher influx, output, and throughput ofscientific or technological studies, we haveto heighten the synergy between students’in-school and extracurricular experiencesof science and technology. Here, too,Technopolis plays a key role—for instance,through its new Technology Club for girls.For all of these reasons, the Flemish

government allocates an important role toTechnopolis, and our recent structuralagreement for a five-year cooperationwith the science center was the logicalthing to do.

Fientje Moerman is Minister for Economy,Enterprise, Science, Innovation, and Foreign Trade and Vice-Minister-Presidentin the Flemish Government.

CEO Erik Jacquemyn, left, with science policycouncil secretary Elisabeth Monard, welcomesFlemish vice-minister-president Fientje Moermanto Technopolis. Photo courtesy Technopolis

A Pillar of Science and Innovation Policy

10 March/April 2005 • ASTC Dimensions

Trust for Historic Preservationas “one of the last of the greatrailroad stations built in theUnited States,” was costing us$2.6 million a year in mainte-nance alone—and repairs werelong overdue.

What we needed was a detailed strategic plan. Theshort-term goal was survival;the long-term goal, a newfunding structure that wouldallow Museum Center to meetour obligation to the voterswho had entrusted us with thebuilding’s care in the first place(our $33 million constructionlevy wouldn’t be paid off until2009) and to ensure financialstability while the organizationsolicited long-term resources.

Starting the processThe first step was for our newlyformed “government relations com-mittee,” made up of politically activetrustees, myself, and a vice president,to develop its best argument for publicfunding. The group began by compar-ing Museum Center to like institu-tions by attendance, earned revenue,and other comparables. We took aclose look at the organization’s finan-cial picture and catalogued the build-ing’s maintenance and preservationneeds. Finally, we commissioned athird-party economic impact study.This would prove critical; through it,we were able to demonstrate that Museum Center attracted more than1 million visitors a year, accounted formore than 1,100 jobs, and generatedover $75 million in the community.Those were impossible numbers forofficials and the public to ignore.

The government relations commit-tee also worked with a local commu-nications firm to develop a marketingcommunications plan that would build

Museum Center’s institutional posi-tioning, increase its role as a leader inthe community, broaden its con-stituencies, and communicate the re-alities of its financial situation.

In June 2003, we were finally readyto submit our formal request to theHamilton County commissioners, set-ting the legal process in motion. Inaccordance with a newly passed Ac-countability to County Taxpayers Act,a thorough financial audit had to beperformed by an outside firm. The re-quest would then be vetted by theTax Levy Review Committee and submitted for approval to the countyboard of commissioners.

The auditor found that MuseumCenter operated efficiently and effec-tively, concluding that the levy re-quest was justifiable and, in fact, nec-essary. The review committee recom-mended the $3.8 million annual levyto the board in October. MuseumCenter mounted an active grassrootse-mail and letter campaign, and inDecember, the board voted unani-mously to put the levy on the March2004 ballot.

For those willing to assume alittle more risk in their searchfor public funding, one ap-

proach is to go directly to local voters.Making the case for a bond issue(common in capital projects) or aproperty tax levy (a source of ongoingrevenue) can give your organization atremendous boost. But what if youlose? In the following article, we hearfrom three science centers about their experiences—two successful, one un-successful—in going “on the ballot.”

The 1933 Union Terminal building inCincinnati, Ohio, is home to five culturalinstitutions—the Cincinnati History Museum, Cinergy Children’s Museum,the Museum of Natural History & Science, the Robert D. Lindner Family OMNIMAX Theater, and the CincinnatiHistorical Society Library—collectivelyknown as the Cincinnati Museum Centerat Union Terminal. On March 2, 2004,the group’s request for a five-year, 0.2-mill property tax levy was approved bythe voters of Hamilton County.

Saving Museum CenterBy Douglass W. McDonald

Although Cincinnati MuseumCenter had been developing

relationships with key civic and polit-ical leaders for years, groundwork forour public funding initiative began inearnest in February 2002.

At the time, the institution wascaught in an “economic perfectstorm.” Attendance (especially in theevening) had dropped drastically aftercivil unrest and resulting police ac-tions occurred in 2001 in the nearbydowntown. In a lagging economy, our endowment, already diminished byconstruction overruns, had to betapped again to cover deficits. UnionTerminal, recognized by the National

On the Ballot:Letting the People Decide

Above: Former basketball starand levy campaign co-chairOscar Robertson speaks at the“Stand Up for Museum Cen-ter” press conference.Right: The historic 1933 artdeco Union Terminal.

Photos

cour

tesy

Cin

cinna

ti M

useu

m C

enter

ASTC Dimensions • March/April 2005 11

Down to the wireCampaigning now became morestraightforward. We already knew thatpotential voters wanted to save thehistoric terminal and appreciated thevalue of Museum Center attractions.Radio and television spots and printads were created to support thosemessages. Outreach targeted absenteevoters, likely voters, and registeredmuseum-member voters. Volunteersand staff spoke in person to 38 com-munity groups and secured endorse-ments from local media. A web sitemade key information available online.

Civic and community leaders ralliedin support. More than 100 agreed toserve on a community leadershipcouncil; many attended a key “StandUp for Museum Center” press confer-ence that served as one of the cam-paign’s final pushes. Basketball Hall of Famer Oscar Robertson, equally famous in Cincinnati for his sports career and his civic pride, served ascampaign co-chair and appeared in television spots. Apollo astronaut NeilArmstrong lent his name to a postcardcampaign. A former mayor and a pop-ular local clergyman appeared in radiospots, and a local radio/TV personalityrecorded a phone message remindingcounty residents to vote.

On Election Day, museum volun-teers and employees, some in historiccostume, created a compelling pres-ence at polling sites. That night, wewatched eagerly as “for” votes out-tallied “against” votes, 2-1.

In addition to the campaign itself, Ibelieve there were two long-term keysto our success. One was that MuseumCenter did not retract after the civilunrest of 2001, but rather developedspecial exhibits and community-basedprogramming in response. The otherwas that through our ongoing effortsto reduce expenses and increase revenues, we had already created anenvironment in which local fiscal con-servatives could support the levy. ■

Douglass W. McDonald is president andCEO of Cincinnati Museum Center atUnion Terminal, Cincinnati, Ohio; www.cincymuseum.org.

On November 2, 2004, voters in Miami-Dade County, Florida, approved a$552.7 million general obligation propertytax bond issue for cultural facilities. Thetotal included $100 million toward a$175 million Miami Art Museum and$175 million toward a $267 million Museum of Science and Planetarium, bothplanned for Bicentennial Park.

On the WaterfrontBy Gillian Thomas

Ijoined the Miami Museum of Science & Planetarium just 18months ago, several years after

plans for a new museum had been developed and some modest fund-ing—a few pledges, planning grants,and a successful first fund-raisinggala—secured.

This was a double challenge forme. I was in a new country, and I hadnever joined a project until at leasthalf of the funding was in place.Given my past experience, I knewgetting this kind of funding would bean uphill struggle.

So why did it seem attractive? Well,Miami is a special place. The water-front location proposed—with twomuseums, science and art, in a newmuseum park—had to be one of thebest opportunities worldwide. It justremained to persuade the voters.

Pros and consEarly trips to see city and countycommissioners and potential sponsorswere both encouraging and caution-ary. We learned that the science muse-um is much loved throughout thecommunity; it is rare to find someonewho does not have a happy recollec-tion of a visit. A survey showed that ifthe museum went alone for a bond,75 percent of voters would support it.

At the same time, although it waseasy to sell a vision of the new muse-um, sponsors wanted to be sure thatthe bond funding was in place beforethey would commit. It was also uncertain that the county would goahead in the near future with a gener-al obligation bond that included themuseum, even though such a project

had been talked of for years.We began a campaign to go it

alone. Our plan was to circulate a petition and obtain sufficient votes toget on the ballot. This would requiresubstantial time spent with county officials and commissioners just to getthem through the first stage of agree-ing that a petition could be proposed.

Fortunately, at this junction thecounty decided that it would in factgo ahead with a general obligationbond. After substantial discussions, thefigure of $175 million was agreed onfor the museum. The funding wouldbe included in a bond specifically forcultural projects. This was a one-of-a-kind opportunity for the county,which was finally paying off its debtfrom its Decade of Progress Bond 30years ago. Miami-Dade could nowissue $2.9 billion in new bonds forprojects without increasing the home-owners’ millage rate for local taxation.

The Miami Museum of Sciencethus became part of a large countyballot initiative, included in one ofeight questions with a group of cul-tural projects and some education ini-tiatives. Unfortunately, polling nowshowed that the cultural questionwould be one of the most difficult toget passed. Voters were concernedabout both the total cost—anotherproject here, a performing arts centerthat is already almost completed, isrunning substantially over budget—and the sheer size of the ballot ques-tion, at over $500 million.

In November 2004, voters approvedfunding for two new Miami museums—one for science, one for art—in a newwaterfront Bicentennial Park. Photo courtesy Miami Museum of Science

12 March/April 2005 • ASTC Dimensions

The power of manyThe cultural sector got together towork out how we could get the votepassed. We were advised by politicalstrategists to focus on all eight ques-tions and on getting our vote (i.e., thecultural issue) out. If we worked to-gether, we were told, rather than try-ing to sell our individual projects, wewould do better.

The county was already planningan extensive, trilingual general infor-mation campaign, with over 1,000groups and locations targeted. We allhad large booster groups. We couldreinforce the county effort by callingon this base.

This is just what we did. Speakers’bureaus trained our people to addresscommunity groups. Telephone banksof members and other constituentswere contacted. We spoke to everygroup that used or visited the muse-ums, and we sent postcards, letters,and e-mails to contacts, friends, andcolleagues. All of the cultural groupscontributed funds to a common ad-vertising campaign. In the end, alleight questions passed, with over 60percent of voters in favor.

To me, the most positive aspect ofthe campaign was the way in whichthese generally competing organiza-tions collaborated and actually fol-lowed the political advice, even whenit seemed counterintuitive. Despiteour desire to trumpet our individualprojects, we managed to work togeth-er to promote all eight questions, andwe won.

Since then, I have been delightedby the number of people who havecome up to me to say they are pleasedthe bond issue passed and that theypersonally contacted family, friends,and colleagues to ask them to vote.We are lucky to have generated thislevel of support in a very diverse andfragmented community. Miami is indeed a city with a bright future—itscitizens voted for it. ■

Gillian Thomas is president of the MiamiMuseum of Science & Space Transit Planetarium, Miami, Florida: www.miamisci.org.

In March 2004, COSI Columbus askedthe voters of Franklin County, Ohio, to ap-prove a 0.5-mil property tax levy intendedto generate $12.4 million a year for the sci-ence center over five years. In return, countycitizens would no longer have to pay admis-sion to visit COSI. Despite support fromthe Columbus business community, the levyfailed by a margin of 2-1.

When the Answer Is ‘No’By Kathryn D. Sullivan

Throughout its history, COSIColumbus has been a two-legged

stool, relying on earned income andcorporate/private support, but withoutan ongoing public appropriations“leg.” Staff and the board had dis-cussed, as early as 2001, the possibilityof going to the voters for support, butit wasn’t until mid 2003 that the timeseemed right to launch a campaign.

Internal research suggested that wehad the makings of a solid case state-ment—investor support, good data,quality programming, finances insound order. The idea was to preparein early 2004 for the November ballot.

A race to the pollsThe project began well enough. Ourfirst step was to find out whether thescience center could qualify, understate law, to request ballot support. InOhio, the law clearly allows munici-palities to seek a tax levy for a zoo orzoological park; there is also a provi-sion (the one Cincinnati relied on) forpublic buildings. Our pro bono legalteam turned up another provision thatlooked hopeful: Ohio law permits levy support for “a free museum of art, science, or history.” To qualify, COSIwould need to be truly free at thedoor to citizens of the county thatpassed the levy.

That finding created a lot of excite-ment among our board and externalbusiness partners. Staff started crunch-ing numbers. What size request wouldallow us to meet our goal but not ex-ceed what voters were willing to pay?The judgment was that 0.5 mil per$1,000 of assessed value would beenough to cover lost admissions and

provide a worthwhile increment ofoperating support.

The wild-card factor in all of thiswas the Columbus Zoo, which waslooking to put forward its own 10-year levy renewal in March 2004. Inlate October 2003, while we were stillworking on our long-range plan, thezoo discovered a technicality that required it to go on the November2004 ballot instead.

This put us in a dilemma. Could wemove rapidly enough to try the March2004 ballot, or would we have to holdoff for a year? A conversation with theFranklin County commissioners indi-cated that, although the timeline wasshort, it was possible in terms of thelegal requirements and they were will-ing to assist us. A short burst of pollingand opinion sampling produced astrong positive, 65 percent, for a “free”museum. We decided to go for it.

Throughout October and Novem-ber, we assembled our paperwork. Welearned of some focus groups beingdone on civic topics by a communityaffairs organization and piggybackedon their work, inserting a small groupof COSI-related questions into thelist. Support still appeared strong. Inmid-December, we filed.

With less than three months tomake our case, we got rolling. Twostrong board companies, key players indeveloping the new COSI, brought incontractors with political campaignexperience to help run the effort. Vol-unteers distributed flyers and walkedthe communities. I spoke to commis-sions and Rotary and Kiwanis clubscountywide. Our “Campaign for aFree COSI” collected about $500,000.A public relations consultant wroteletters to local officials; we did media,radio, and TV spots, including somewith celebrity proponents. Everyonewas telling us we were on track—rightup to March 2, when the levy wassoundly defeated.

Post-election reflectionsCould the outcome have been prevent-ed? Looking back, it’s clear that thespeed of the process cost us in terms offriend-making (Continued on page 14)

ASTC Dimensions • March/April 2005 13

This is the story of an advocacycampaign that began in 2001. It hinges on the distinction we

make in the United Kingdom betweena “science center” and a “science museum.” Science museums—withhistoric collections representingnational heritage—are eligible forfunding from the government’sDepartment of Culture, Media andSport (DCMS). Science centers—with specially designed interactiveexhibitions but no heritage arti-facts—are not.

Pulling together ECSITE, the European Network ofScience Centres and Museums, wasestablished in 1989. By 2000, as a result of an extraordinary investmentof U.K. national lottery funds in new science center projects (the Millenni-um Centres), a fifth of all ECSITEmembers were located in the UnitedKingdom. This seemed to call for adedicated organization in Britain.A proposal was put to ECSITE’s

board of directors, and ECSITE-UKwas constituted in 2001 as a nationalchapter of the European network.Colin Johnson, then director of Techniquest, Cardiff, was elected firstchair, and the present author was appointed executive director. An immediate aim of ECSITE-UK

was “to establish a major capital fundfor the refurbishment of science cen-ters and their exhibitions.” The Millen-nium Centres had received capitalfunding only—a condition of that lot-tery fund—and many were strugglingto survive. Older institutions were alsoin need. Gillian Thomas, formerlyCEO of At-Bristol and now presidentof the Miami Museum of Science (seepage 11), laid the groundwork withthe Wellcome Trust and the Millenni-um Commission, and ECSITE-UK staffwere invited to comment on draftdocuments. In August 2002, the ReDiscover Fund was launched as ajoint venture between the Millennium

ECSITE-UK:ECSITE-UK:Britain’s Science Center Advocate

By Melanie Quin

Commission, the Wellcome Trust,and the Wolfson Foundation to sup-port science education and engage-ment with the public. The Fund was to make awards

totaling £33 million in four fundingrounds over three years. To be eligi-ble, organizations had to attract aminimum of 30,000 visitors a yearand have been in operation for atleast one year. The fourth round isnow closed, and successful last-roundapplications will be announced soonafter this article is published. The Millennium Commission will

end in spring 2006, leaving no obvi-ous successor to ReDiscover. How -ever, a new lottery scheme, the BigLottery Fund, has been announced,and ECSITE-UK has asked for sciencecenters to be considered for funding.

Falling between three stoolsA more long-term challenge is the factthat the U.K. science center sectorand the government are in a situationwhich—although anticipated and ex-plicitly warned about—is not whereany of us would wish to be. No onewants to “own” the science centers.There are several possible candi-

dates. DCMS is the Ministry for theMillennium Commission, but theyhave an ongoing unease about lotteryprojects that have not achieved self-sufficiency. The Office of Science and

Technology of the Departmentfor Trade and Industry (DTI/OST)is in charge of science and publicengagement with science. TheDepartment for Education andSkills (DfES) is responsible for theformal education sector. There isalso a specially convened Inter-departmental Steering Group,the existence of which impliesthat government feels someone

has to take a positive decision to sup-port science centers.Mindful of our purpose “to raise

the profile of science centers and museums and to support their sustain-able development,” ECSITE-UK devel-oped an advocacy strategy and beganknocking on doors in Westminster. Inthat strategy, the role of chair hasbeen central. Colin Johnson and hissuccessor, John Durant, CEO of At-Bristol, have brought insight, flair, andtenacity to the process, crucially sup-ported by committee members whorepresent the full range of ECSITE-UKmember institutions.For our first initiative, in 2002, we

collected data and case studies, in-cluding visitor numbers, exhibitionsizes, operating budgets, sources ofincome, and examples of excellencein educational and engagement pro-gramming. A full report, with sciencecenter deliverables matched againstgovernment department objectives,went to civil servants at DCMS, DTI/OST, and DfES. A two-page executivesummary was mailed to more than100 members of Parliament and peerswith responsibility for science/educa-tion through committee membershipor ministerial appointment. We re-peated the exercise in 2003 and areworking on a third version. At every opportunity, we network

with key influencers of policy. We se-cured meetings with two successivesecretaries of state for education, andwith the science minister (not a cabinetpost). Among our discoveries was thatDCMS does not include “science” in

Science centers At-Bristol,left, and Techniquest wereamong the founding mem-bers of ECSITE-UK. Photoscourtesy ECSITE-UK

14 March/April 2005 • ASTC Dimensions

(Continued from page 12) and coordina-tion. Having more consultation withcommunity partners might have fore-stalled the perception by some thatCOSI was benefiting at their expense.

Compelled to be too hasty with ourresearch, we were also too trusting.With even the most pessimistic surveyputting us ahead by 11 or 12 points, weforgot one of the classic flaws of suchinstruments: People are conscious ofhow they’ll look when they state theiropinion. On election day, the down-town precincts strongly supported thelevy, but in the suburbs it was anotherstory. Whatever picture of COSI thosevoters were conjuring up—of homelesspeople loitering in the halls, or crowdsof rowdy middle or high schoolersknocking over their toddlers—it wasenough to sink the proposal.

Of course, other factors entered in aswell. A general tax fatigue affects manycommunities, especially those withproperty-based school funding formu-las. We had an outspoken opponent inthe arts community who did what hecould to derail the project. And, giventhe kind of town Columbus is, with asmall enclave of highly successful com-panies and wealthy CEOs, there was acertain air of “They built it; let thempay for it.”

All of that was Politics 101, a valu-able lesson about our community. Butlosing in such a painfully public wayalso forced us to look more closely atour own organizational culture. It wasclear that what we had perceived as institutional pride, others had seen asarrogance and insularity. Even withinCOSI itself, there were rifts. Most ofthese dated back to the development ofthe new building, when hard-won staff expertise about the museum—whatworks and what doesn’t, what’s good tobuild and what isn’t—didn’t have apowerful advocating voice at the table.These were classic human-nature mis-takes, to be avoided going forward.

Finding the silver liningIn the end, even a painful defeat maybe a blessing in disguise. Had COSIwon its levy, we would still have had tomake some tough choices, but they

its definition of “culture,” and that the de-partment has been trying hard to wash itshands of the science centers’ predicament.

Cautious optimismEngland’s two great national science muse-ums, the Science Museum and the Natural History Museum in London, bring in around11 percent of their operating expendituresfrom trading and operating income, includ-ing admission fees. Techniquest is the com-parable institution within the science center sector, though on a much smaller scale, inthat it receives government “revenue fund-ing.” Its breadth and depth of educationand programming are supported by fundingfrom the Welsh Assembly. Techniquest typi-cally earns 65 percent of its operating in-come and receives 35 percent from govern-ment. This is the model we are promoting.The good news is that Westminster an-

nounced in March 2004 a total of £2 millionin revenue funding for five English sciencecenters through April 2006. This representsrecognition of the contributions these insti-tutions make, both to informal sciencelearning and to wider public engage ment,as well as their need for revenue funding. The announcement acted as helpful lever-

age on parallel discussions in Scotland. InJune, the Scottish Executive announced a£5.1 million investment from the Executiveand £1.9 million from Scottish Enterprise aspart of a two-year package. The four Scot-tish science centers have also secured a £3.7million per annum budget line within theScottish Executive Education Department.This funding is comparable to that providedby Wales for Techniquest, and is tied to astructured framework of delivery milestones. The situation of the science center sector

is by no means secure, however. The interimfunding applies only to Millennium Centres,and ECSITE-UK has an obligation to help allmember institutions. Two Scottish sciencecenters are represented on the ECSITE-UKCommittee, and it is now our job to applyleverage from north of the border to the situ-ations in England and Northern Ireland.At the same time, we are developing a

common vision of science engagementacross Britain in partnership with the BA(British Association for the Advancement ofScience) and the National Museum for Sci-ence and Industry. The government-fundedResearch Councils appear to be buying in;the next step is to sell it to DTI/OST. Theprice tag? Several million pounds a year. ■

Melanie Quin is executive director of ECSITE-UK; www.ecsite-uk.net.

would have been internal choices.Going through this very public processserved to remind the Columbus com-munity—which had, over the years,perhaps ceased to think of us as a civicinstitution—that COSI is theirs, that itis a nonprofit, that they have a stake inwhat happens to the science center.And it served to remind managementand the board about the true value ofinclusiveness, openness, and transpar -ency. If a new equation needs to bewritten for this institution, we all haveto do it together.

Happily, that is just what is happen-ing. At COSI, we were already workingto become more engaged with ourcommunity. Losing the levy jumpedthat effort forward. Today, I have astreamlined 11-member governingboard that is very actively involved. Wehave inaugurated a new communityadvisory council, including many peo-ple new to the science center. TheFriends of COSI group has changed,too. Younger, more grassroots, more inclusive, they have taken hold of run-ning a fund-raiser this spring with apassion we haven’t seen for more than20 years.

For me, as a leader, the levy’s defeatbrought lessons as well. One is to trustmy instincts and be willing to take astand. More than once, the hairs on theback of my neck went up after a too-glib report, but I did not push my con-cerns forcefully enough.

A second is always to have a backupplan. Yes, planning with one or twotrusted deputies what you will do ifyou fail, even as you are publicly presenting yourself as the emblem ofsuccess, creates a certain tension, but inthe aftermath of defeat you will be gladyou did.Your confidence in yourself will be shaken, you will feelyou have let others down, and thosewho follow you may be questioningyour ability.The remedy is action, andthat is your responsibility. Be hurt, beshocked, but be prepared to lead. ■

Kathryn D. Sullivan, a former NASA as-tronaut and chief scientist of NOAA, ispresident and CEO of COSI Columbus,Columbus, Ohio; www.cosi.org.

ASTC Dimensions • March/April 2005 15

Sooner or later, each of us willhave the chance to represent thefield of informal science educa-

tion. We may be asked to testify onbehalf of science centers before apanel that is setting priorities forfunding from a private foundation, orbefore a city, state, or federal govern-ment agency, or before a professionalassociation. In each case, representingthe field requires a different approachfrom our usual advocacy roles, whichare focused on why our particular in-stitution is right for the task at hand.

What makes this representation achallenge is that other fields—such asformal education systems (K–12 oruniversity), business communities, orhealth care communities—are likelyto be advocating for their approach atthe same time. These entities are vastlylarger and better known than we are.

I have had the privilege of repre-senting informal science learningand/or science centers on many occa-sions—locally, nationally, and interna-tionally. I’ve tried to use formativeevaluation, assessing how my audienceresponded, and adjusting my nextpresentation accordingly.

Here are recommendations basedon what I’ve learned:

• Represent the field, and notyour own institution. If peoplethink you are “selling” services inwhich you have a direct personal in-terest, they tend to discount what youare saying as self-serving. So don’t usemany examples from your own insti-tution’s work, no matter how splendidyou know those examples to be. I citethe work of other science centers,near and far, and resist mightily thetemptation to celebrate my own institution more than once.

• Have specific facts and figures. Many people advocate with generalclaims of competence and accom-plishment, and every advocacy groupcan produce grand-sounding anec-dotes. A few hard numbers will usu -ally trump general boasts.

I remember the first time I heardMark St. John report on his 1996 survey An Invisible Infrastructure: Institu-tions of Informal Science Education. Hereat last were actual numbers—repre-senting, for example, teachers trainedeach year in science centers. A generalclaim that “we do important work forteacher in-service professional devel-opment” could forever be replacedwith hard, impressive numbers toprove it. Everybody in the room wasmadly scribbling down the figures.

Some other figures I have found toimpress are these:

• Science-technology centers in theUnited States are a billion-dollar-a-year industry, with institutions locatedin every major city in the country(from several ASTC surveys, combin-ing operating and capital expenses).

• 55 million people visit science-technology centers in the UnitedStates every year (ASTC Sourcebook2004).

• 61 percent of adult Americansvisit an informal science institution(e.g., zoo, aquarium, science center,natural history museum, or arbore-tum) at least once a year (NSF Science and Engineering Indicators 2000,Appendix Table 8–34).

• Choose visual aids carefully. Along series of images of smiling chil-dren at exhibits, or screen after screenof PowerPoint bullets, will quickly tirean audience with lots of other testi-mony yet to come. If I have only few

minutes to present, I use at most acouple of striking images that directlyaddress my point. If I have 30 minutesor more, I use more images or props.

• Explicitly recognize the value ofothers’ approaches. Most often thepeople in the audience have theirown beloved sectors to support. Soyou need to be careful not to putthem on the defensive by appearingto claim that informal science learn-ing is the best—or even the only—way to go. Science centers and museums are an important tool, andwe work well with the others.

Overall, it is important to remem-ber that this kind of presenta-

tion is different from speaking to yourpeers. In advocacy to a more generalforum, we are usually talking to people who are aware of the science center in their own town and per -haps a few others; who believe that “informal” means “casual” or even“careless” (using “free-choice” helps);and who are expecting to reinforcetheir existing commitments, not takeon new enthusiasms. So we need tostart from near scratch and conciselyshow the scope and potential of thescience center field to help our audience achieve its aims. ■

Alan J. Friedman is director and CEO of the New York Hall of Science, Queens,New York. He has represented the field of science centers and museums on panelsat the National Science Foundation, theAmerican Association for the Advancementof Science, the National Academy of Engineering, and the U.S. Department ofEducation, among others, and has giveninvited talks on free-choice science learningin cities around the world.

Thoughts on Representing the Field

By Alan J. Friedman

16 March/April 2005 • ASTC Dimensions ASTC Notes

THROUGHOUT 2005

1 World Year of Physics 2005: Einstein in the 21st Century. Details: www.physics2005.org

18–19 ASTC RAP Session.* “Marketing the Contem -

porary Science Center.” Hosted by Orlando Science Center, Orlando, Florida. Details: Heidi Pinchal, hpinchal@osc.org

1–30 Mathematics Awareness Month. “Mathematics and the Cosmos.” Sponsored by the American Mathematical Society, the American Statistical Association, the Mathematical Association of America, and the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Details: www.mathaware.org

10–15 Science Centre World Congress 2005. Hosted by the Fundaçao Oswaldo Cruz and the Museu da Vida, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Details: www. museudavida. fiocruz.br.4scwc/

13–16 Museums and the Web 2005.Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Details: www. archimuse. com/mw2005/

27 Math Momentum Workshop: Measurement. Hosted by the Children’s Museum of Houston, in conjunction with Interactivity 2005, Indianapolis, Indiana. Details: Keith Ostfeld, kostfeld@ cmhouston.org

28–30 Interactivity 2005. “The Power of Family Learning.” Association of Children’s Museums annual meeting. Indianapolis,

Calendar

OCTOBER

* Information on ASTC RAP sessions is available at www.astc.org/profdev/. For updated events listings, click on ‘Calendar’ at www.astc.org.

APRIL

JUNE

Indiana. Details: www. childrensmuseums.org

1–5 2005 American Associa- tion of Museums Annual Meeting. “Museums at the Crossroads.” Indianapolis, Indiana. ASTC will sponsor a reception/dinner on Sunday, May 1. Details: www.aam-us.org

6 Space Day (U.S.). “Return to the Moon.” Details: www. spaceday.org

13–14 ASTC RAP Session.* “Expanding Museum Out-

reach Through the Use of Multi-User Environments.” Hosted by SciCentr.org, Cornell Theory Center, New York, New York. Details: Suzanne Kolodziej, smk@tc.cornell.edu

8 Math Momentum Workshop: Data. Hosted by the St. Louis Science Center, St. Louis, Missouri. Details: Gloria White, gwhite@slsc.org

10–12 ECSITE Annual Confer- ence. Hosted by Heureka, the Finnish Science Centre, Vantaa, Finland. Details: http://ecsite.ballou.be/new

2–6 Visitor Studies Association Annual Conference. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Details: www.visitorstudies.org

15–18 ASTC Annual Confer- ence. “Partnerships for Excellence.” Hosted by the

Science Mu seum of Virginia, Richmond. Details: www.astc.org/conference

MARCH

Ask the Sourcebook

Who receives a higher percentageof government funding—U.S.

science centers or non-U.S. sciencecenters?† Answers to questions likethis, and many more, can be found inthe new ASTC Sourcebook of ScienceCenter Statistics 2004.

Available from ASTC Publications,the Sourcebook features data from the2004 ASTC General Member Survey,representing more than 180 sciencecenter and museum respondents. Amongthe topics covered are attendance patterns and trends; school groups,teachers, and youth; employees andvolunteers; and science center finances.

The new Sourcebook costs $30 forASTC members; $45 for nonmembers.Shipping is extra. To place an order,write to pubs@astc.org, or call202/783-7200 x140.

A CD-ROM, ASTC Science CenterStatistics 2004, containing raw datafrom the survey in Microsoft Excelformat, is available for licensed use byASTC members only for a $100 fee.For details, e-mail cruffo@astc.org.

†Public funds constituted 24.1 percent of operating revenue for the 137 U.S.members that responded to the survey, and 38.9 percent for the 30 respondents outsidethe United States.

Communicating Pacific Rim Impact

APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) is an intergovern-

mental forum to facilitate economicgrowth and cooperation across theAsia-Pacific region. On December 4,representatives from science centers inPacific Rim countries met in HongKong to scope a new three-year APECScience Centre Impact Project. Bren-ton Honeyman, of Australia’s Questa-con, the National Science Centre,sends the following report:

“Within the APEC region, sciencecenters and museums have developedmany exemplary programs and activi-

MAY

AUGUST

ASTC Dimensions • March/April 2005 17ASTC Notes

ties. However, although these activitiesare bringing about significant impactsfor their local communities, they arenot being communicated widely toother science centers and museums inthe region. The APEC Science CentreImpact Project will address that need, aswell as provide a strategic opportunityto communicate the valuable impactsof science centers and museums togovernments, building dialogue andunderstanding about the contributionsthat science centers bring to theircommunities.

“The project, in cooperation withthe international networks of ASPAC,ASTC, and Red-POP, will obtain, an-alyze, and share data about the personal, societal, economic, and policy development impacts of sciencecenters and museums, and capture anddisseminate innovative and best-practice approaches across the APECregion.”

All science centers and museums inAPEC economies are invited to participate. For further information,visit www.aspacnet.org/apec, or contactBrenton Honeyman, Coordinator,APEC Science Centre Impact Project, Questacon, Australia, atbhoneyman@questacon.edu.au.

of ECSITE’s importance in the dis-semination of science and technology issues;

• ECSITE delivered to DG Re-search, for reference use on its website, a demonstration CD-ROM con-taining best practices in communicat-ing scientific research to the public;

• The PENCIL project, now calledNucleus, will receive EU Commissionfunding of around 4.5 million euros.ECSITE leads the newly configuredcluster of education projects, which arefunded by DG Research.”

ASTC on the Road

Planning to attend the AAM Annual Meeting in Indianapolis

May 1–5 ? Stop by ASTC’s booth inthe Museum Expo to learn moreabout exhibitions we are traveling,and be sure to attend our evening reception, on Sunday, May 1, at theChildren’s Museum of Indianapolis.

Mark your calendars also for the2005 ASTC Annual Conference, October 15–18, hosted by the Sci-ence Museum of Virginia, Richmond.Watch for details in upcoming issuesof ASTC Dimensions, or visit www.astc.org/conference. ■

ECSITE and the EU Commission

Jean-François Hebert, president ofLa Cité des Sciences et de l’Indus-

trie, Paris, and outgoing president of ECSITE, shares with us part of a report he presented at the network’s2004 Annual Meeting, in Barcelona:

“Regarding our relations with the European Union Commission,ECSITE is now well established in itsservices and recognized as one of themain platforms to communicate withEuropean citizens about science andtechnology.

“In 2004, we have had several signsof this recognition by the commission:

• ECSITE has been invited to participate in an April conference organized by the commission’s Direc-torate General for Research (DG Research);

• The museum directors’ forumheld at La Cité in March was organ-ized with the support and participa-tion of DG Research;

• EU research commissionerPhilippe Busquin attended an EU-organized conference on the “braindrain” at La Cité in June and spoke

• Exploration Station: The Irish Children’s Museum, Dublin, Ireland. Now in development, the museum is expected to open in 2007.• Offshore Energy Center’s Ocean Star DrillingRig and Museum, Houston, Texas. In addition to itsmain facility, a converted deep-sea oil rig now moored atPier 19 in Galveston, the museum operates an award-winning outreach program in four states.

SUSTAINING MEMBERS• EHDD Architecture, San Francisco, California• Entertainment Technology Corporation,Southampton, Pennsylvania• EwingCole, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania• nWave Pictures Distribution, Greenwich, Connecticut.

SCIENCE CENTER AND MUSEUM MEMBERS• Computer History Museum, Mountain View, California. Dedicated to preserving and presenting the “artifacts and stories of the Information Age,” the museumfeatures education programs, a research center, online exhibits, and a four-story Visible Storage display center.• Discovery Center at Murfree Spring, Murfrees-boro, Tennessee. Chartered in 1987 as a children’s museum,the Discovery Center, which includes a 20-acre wetland,has expanded its mission to include environmental exhibitsand programs.

Welcome to ASTC

The following new members were among those approved byASTC’s Membership Committee in September 2004. Contactinformation is available in the “About ASTC” section of theASTC web site, www.astc.org.

SpotlightsBy Christine Ruffo and Carolyn Sutterfield

AN ARTFUL SPACE—A dramatic,aesthetic experience awaits visitors atthe expansion of the Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh, whichopened November 6, 2004. The proj-ect joins two historic buildings byway of a new three-story structure,bringing the total floor space to80,000 square feet—four times themuseum’s original size. On track forLEED “green” certification, the ex-panded museum gets its electricityfrom renewable energy sources only.

More than $500,000 of the project’s$28.7 million budget was allocated forcommissioned artworks by local andnational artists. The façade of the newconnecting building is a dynamic windsculpture, Articulated Cloud, designedby award-winning artist and exhibitbuilder Ned Kahn in collaborationwith Koning Eizenberg Architecture.Interactive art works located through-out the facility include Text Rain byCamille Utterback and Romy Achituv,which allows visitors to “catch” lettersraining from the top of a video screento form words and sentences, and Fan-tastic Inflatable by Tim Kaulen, a 15-foot-tall dinosaur made from recycledbillboard vinyl.

New exhibit areas are based on thephilosophy “Play with Real Stuff.”They include the Garage Workshop,where young visitors can take aparthousehold appliances and tinker underthe hood of a real Mini Cooper, andWaterplay, where they can build boatsand fountains. Returning as a perma-nent exhibition is Welcome to MisterRogers’ Neighborhood, a re creation ofthe beloved television program’s set,

where visitors can work a vintage tel-evision camera, play with puppets, andride a life-sized trolley.

Local and state government pro -vided $9 million for the project; private foundations and other com-munity sources supplied the rest.Details: Bill Schlageter, marketing

director, bschlageter@pittsburghkids.org

UNDER YOUR SKIN—The ethicscommittee said yes. The investigatorfound no irregularities. Front-end visitor surveys came up positive. Thusdid the California Science Centerlast July become the first U.S venueto host Body Worlds: The AnatomicalExhibition of Real Human Bodies, a dramatic traveling exhibition devel-oped by German anatomist and inventor Gunther von Hagens.

Many museums display humanspecimens, but the 200 exhibits inBody Worlds, including 25 completebodies, are in a classapart. “Plastination,” aprocess patented by vonHagens in the late 1970s,has rendered them dry,odorless and, in manycases, still flexible. Ex-hibits range from indi-vidual organs that revealthe progression of disease to dynamicallyposed, freestanding bodiesengaged in activitieslike dribbling a basket-ball or playing chess. Inthe exhibition’s mostarresting display, one oftwo flayed male bodiesperched astride a rear-ing horse displays hisown brain in one hand,the horse’s brain in the other.

Controversy, encouraged in part bythe entrepreneurial von Hagens, hassurrounded Body Worlds since its debutin 1997. In Europe, protesters attackedexhibits or covered them with blan-kets. During a 2002 London run, theanatom ist defied British law to per-form the first public autopsy in thatcity in 170 years. Religious andphilosophical journals have both

praised the intricate beauty of the dis-plays and decried the “objectification”of the human body. And although theprovenance of the exhibition’s speci-mens is well documented, reportershave raised questions about procure-ment at von Hagens’ processing plantsin Germany, China, and Kyrgystan.

Sensitive to such concerns, the science center carefully checked outthe exhibition in advance, establishingan expert bioethics panel to review content, testing visitor responses, andsending an independent investigatorto Europe to view documents. Themuseum also set parameters for visi-tors: Children under 13 had to be ac-companied by a parent or guardian,and some more controversial ex-hibits—fetuses, and the bodies of awoman and her child in the eighthmonth of pregnancy—were displayedin a separate area.

Body Worlds finished its six-monthrun in Los Angeles in Janu-ary and is now at Chicago’s Museum of Science andIndustry.A record 665,000visitors saw the exhibitionin California, most of thempaying a $12 fee (museumadmission is free). The re-sponse was so enthusiasticthat the science centerbooked von Hagens’ BodyWorlds 2 to follow it. SaysCalifornia Science Centerpresident Jeff Rudolph:

“The use of real human bod-ies inspires new respect forthe body and its incrediblecomplexity.... People walkedaway...wanting to take bettercare of their health.”

A competing exhibition ofplasticized human specimens, Bodies Revealed, has been developed underthe direction of University of Michi-gan professor emeritus Roy Glover.Organized in nine “systems” of thebody, the exhibition debuted in Eng-land and is currently in Korea; twoversions are available from PremierExhibitions for U.S. distribution. Details: www.bodyworlds.com and

www.bodiesrevealed.com

Ned Kahn’s dynamic wind sculpture, Articulated Cloud, welcomes visitors tothe expanded Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh. Photo courtesy Ned Kahn

In plastination, embalmedor frozen specimens aretreated with acetone andthen impregnated withsilicone rubber or epoxy.The result, as illustratedby “Skinman,” is bothnatural and compelling.Photo courtesy Body Worlds

18 March/April 2005 • ASTC Dimensions

Grants & Awards

ASTC Dimensions • March/April 2005 19

FUN IN THE SUN—Outdoor activ-ities abound at Kidspace Children’sMuseum, Pasadena, California, whichreopened December 16 at its new3.4-acre campus near the historicRose Bowl. The Brookside Park sitetakes advantage of the area’s mild cli-mate, inviting visitors to explore morethan two acres of gardens, waterways,and outdoor learning environments.

Along with tricycle tracks, gardencarts, and a water play area, The Back40’s nine interactive gardens embodythe museum’s theme of “exploration,investigation, and expression.” Thegardens, designed by Nancy GosleePower & Associates, include the OakGrove, filled with native drought-tolerant plants; the Bumpy Fuzzy Gar-den, with its fun-to-touch foliage; andthe Interpretive Arroyo, a model ofPasadena’s Arroyo Seco, completewith flowing water and native plants.

For indoor learning, Kidspace hasreclaimed three historic 1938 build-ings that formerly housed the FannieMorrison Horticultural Center. LosAngeles architect Michael Maltzan refurbished and retrofitted the once-

Digging Deeper, the light-filled main galleryat Kidspace Children’s Museum, housesseven exhibit areas. Photo courtesy Kidspace

The Roger R. and Theresa S. Thompson Endowment Fundhas awarded the Children’s Museum of Portsmouth,Portsmouth, New Hampshire, $23,000 to fund a new after-school initiative, Museum Learning in After-School Programs.The museum will partner with local after-school providers andprovide training and materials for teachers.

• • • • • • •The Museum of Science, Boston, Massachusetts, has receiveda $499,918 IMLS National Leadership Grant for Museums tocreate, in partnership with WestEd Math and Learning Innova-tions, online and physical resources designed to help state edu-cators develop action plans for implementing new K–12 schoolstandards focused on engineering and technology.

through the heart on their own. In addition to the iconic organ, The

Giant Heart: A Healthy Interactive Expe-rience features exhibits in four themedareas: Heart Anatomy and Physiology,Health and Wellness, Blood, and Diag-nosis and Treatment. Visitors can checktheir own blood pressure, take EKGreadings, and learn how to read acardiograph. Cutting-edge technol o-gy includes an Abiomed artificial

heart, robotic diagnosis ofheart problems, and arecreated surgical theater,complete with a video ofopen-heart surgery playinginside a “patient’s” chest.Audio booths demonstratethe connection betweenrelaxation techniques and a lowered heart rate, while a talking vending machineexplains the advantages ofeating certain foods.

In a partnership fundedby an NIH SEPA grant, nursing stu-dents from Thomas Jefferson Univer-sity join museum interpretive staff onthe floor to interact with visitors andgive presentations on blood pressure,lung capacity, exercise, and health.

The Giant Heart: A Healthy Interac-tive Experience is presented by Merck& Co., Inc. and the Merck CompanyFoundation, and sponsored by theHeart Center at Lankenau Hospitaland 6ABC. Additional funding wasprovided by IMLS and a variety ofcorporate and private donors. Details: www.fi.edu ■

dilapidated structures to create spacious, glass-roofed buildings filledwith an abundance of natural light.

In the Digging Deeper gallery, themuseum’s main exhibit hall, visitors toseven exhibit areas learn about fossils,earthquakes, insects, and the art of nature. Two three-story, enclosedclimbing towers afford views over thecomplex. Later this year, constructionwill begin on Building Bigger, an addi-tional 20,000-square-foot building designedby Maltzan that will include a theater, artand movie studios, class-rooms, a robotics exhib-it, and a farmers market.

Funding for the $20 million project camefrom government grants, private foundations, andindividual donors.Details: www.

kidspacemuseum.org

RETURN OF AN ICON—In January1954, when the Franklin Instituteunveiled its “walk-through” humanheart, who could have guessed that theplaster and papier-mâché temporary exhibit would remain a visitor favorite50 years later? Closed in April 2004 forthe latest in a series of reno vations, thegiant heart reopened in October as thecenterpiece of an expanded 5,000-square-foot exhibition. Upgrades in-clude new sound and lighting effectsand a 3-D monitor that recreates theexperience for visitors unable to walk

A visitor favorite for 50years, the newly updatedwalk-through heart at theFranklin Institute now anchors a major exhibition.Photo courtesy the Franklin Institute

The GCF Community Foundation, Durham, North Carolina,has provided funding for 10 benches in the new Catch theWind exhibit area at the Museum of Life and Science, aspart of the museum’s commitment to accessibility for visitors.

• • • • • • •The Science Museum of Iowa, Des Moines, is one of 20U.S. museums recently awarded full accreditation by theAmerican Association of Museums (AAM).

• • • • • • •The Kiwanis Club of Danville Foundation has donated$125,000 to the Danville Science Center, Danville, Virginia,to support the center’s Butterfly Garden and Station andhelp pay for temporary traveling exhibitions.

20 March/April 2005 • ASTC Dimensions People

The National Science Teachers Asso-cation (NSTA) will honor DennisSchatz, vice president of educationand exhibits at the Pacific ScienceCenter, Seattle, Washington, with itsDistinguished Service to Science Education Award at the 2005 NSTAAnnual Convention in Dallas inApril. The award recognizes membersof NSTA who, “through active lead-ership and scholarly endeavor over asigni ficant period of time, have madeextraordinary contributions to the advancement of education in the sci-ences and science teaching.” Schatz,who currently co-directs the Wash-ington State LASER (Leadership andAssistance for Science Education Reform) outreach program, wonNSTA’s Distinguished Informal Science Educator Award in 1996.

Peter Giles, founding president andCEO of The Tech Museum of Inno-vation, San Jose, California, will retireMarch 31 after 18 years of service. A longtime member of the ASTCBoard of Directors, he founded theboard’s Development Committee andserved as its chair from 1999 to 2004.Effective immediately, The Tech’sboard has promoted chief operatingofficer Meredith Taylor to the

position of president. A nationalsearch for a new CEO is under way.

The Science Discovery Center (SDC)of Oneonta, at the State University College (SUC), Oneonta, New York, announces the appointment of SUCphysics professor Hugh Gallagherand his wife, Kelly Gallagher, asco-assistant directors. Al Read con-tinues as SDC director.

The Fort Worth Museum of Scienceand History, Fort Worth, Texas, has announced three senior staff appoint-ments and four promotions. ThomasW. Mitchell, previously controller atVermeer Equipment of Texas Inc., isthe museum’s new chief financial officer; Judy Ivey, formerly develop-ment coordinator at the Amon CarterMuseum, is grants and annual givingcoordinator; and Margaret Ritsch,previously associate vice presidentwith Lipman Hearne, a Washington,D.C. marketing communications firm,is assistant director of marketing. Re-cent promotions include Jim Diffily,to curator of collections; R.L. “Chip”Lindsey, to vice president of creativedevelopment; Kit Goolsby, to vicepresident of education, in charge of

Association of Science-Technology Centers1025 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 500Washington, DC 20005-6310Address Service Requested

Non Profit Org.

U.S. Postage

PA IDWashington, D.C.

Permit No. 537

Museum School and Museum Pre-school; and Colleen Blair, to vicepresident of guest services.

The New York Hall of Science,Queens, announces three senior staffpromotions: Alan J. Friedman, previously director, to director andCEO; Marilyn Hoyt, former deputydirector for external affairs, to presi-dent and COO, and Eric Siegel,former director of program planningand development, to executive vicepresident for program and planning.

Ron Rohovit is the new deputy director for education at the Califor-nia Science Center, Los Angeles. Previously director of education atthe Denver Museum of Nature &Science, Colorado, Rohovit replacesDavid Combs, who has retired forreasons of health.

Larry Leatherman is the new president of the Milton J. RubensteinMuseum of Science & Technology(MOST), Syracuse, New York. Afomer senior director with Bristol-Myers Squibb, he had been interimdirector at MOST for the past year. ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■