INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

KEEP THE SCIENCE MUSEUM’S CHILDREN’S GALLERIES FREE!

For news of events, petitions and campaigns that may be of interest to humanists and secularists.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

KEEP THE SCIENCE MUSEUM’S CHILDREN’S GALLERIES FREE!

#1 Post by Alan H » July 28th, 2016, 10:04 am

KEEP THE SCIENCE MUSEUM’S CHILDREN’S GALLERIES FREE!
TO: IAN BLATCHFORD, THE SCIENCE MUSEUM GROUP

The children's "Launchpad gallery" at the Science museum should be free, and should not be sponsored by an oil company.

Please reverse your decision to start charging an entrance fee and drop Statoil as a sponsor.

Why is this important?

It is vital to make sure children from all backgrounds are inspired by to do science and that scientific education remains reflective of the scientific consensus and not what is in the interests of the sponsors.

As big fans of science education, we are deeply saddened to hear that the popular Launch Pad gallery is to be relaunched not just with sponsorship from an oil company, but an entrance charge too.

As research at King’s College and the Wellcome Trust emphasise, the British public are keen consumers of our amazing scientific culture, but also there are worrying divides in terms of which economic groups are most likely to engage. Price tags on science museum galleries will only exacerbate such social division.

In addition to the entrance charge, it is totally inappropriate for this new gallery to be sponsored by an oil and gas company. It is a corruption of science to see our energies captured by fossil fuel companies and especially galling to see such sponsorship of a gallery aimed at children - it is their futures and qualties of life we risk ruining after all.

We have particular concerns when it comes to the London Science Museum. As freedom of information requests by Art Not Oil have shown, previous sponsorship deals have shown the museum seriously pressurised by oil companies, compromising their scientific and cultural credibility.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: KEEP THE SCIENCE MUSEUM’S CHILDREN’S GALLERIES FREE!

#2 Post by Tetenterre » July 28th, 2016, 10:11 am

I agree wholeheartedly that Launchpad should continue to be free and would love to sign, but:

* They are "hiding" the Statoil sponsorship in a petition about keeping Launchpad free. They are distinct things and need distinct petitions.
* It's bloody 38 Degrees! Every time I have signed one of their petitions, I got streams of unsolicited junk email.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: KEEP THE SCIENCE MUSEUM’S CHILDREN’S GALLERIES FREE!

#3 Post by Nick » July 28th, 2016, 4:49 pm

38 Degrees is enough to put anyone off! :laughter:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: KEEP THE SCIENCE MUSEUM’S CHILDREN’S GALLERIES FREE!

#4 Post by Alan H » July 28th, 2016, 4:57 pm

Nick wrote:38 Degrees is enough to put anyone off! :laughter:
Seriously?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply