In thinking about these historical testimonials, it occurs to me that so many fascinating individuals have passed through the doors of our science centers and museums and experienced so much. If we are judged by the company we keep, then we are no doubt judged favorably for the company of so many curious and inspired folks who have chosen to spend their precious time with us.

Too often and too easily, we refer to these knowledge seekers in generalized numerical terms more associated with revenue streams and statistical trends. Though the numbers are indeed impressive, we should remember that these are individuals who have consciously selected science, however briefly, as their domain of interest. And their visits to our institutions often yield new experiences and lasting memories. For some, science center visits inspire lifetimes of exploration, satisfaction, and even significant contributions to the global good.

ASTC would like to translate these personal experiences of our visitors into a collective expression of the inspirational value of our entire field. To emphasize this point, we are particularly eager to obtain testimonials from the “high achievers” in our society who can trace their interests, and maybe even their successes, back to profound science center and museum experiences.

If you know individuals who would be willing to share such testimonials for our wider communications efforts, please send their names and contact information to yourstory@astc.org, or ask that they do this themselves. We will reach out to them in brief, recorded telephone interviews. It is our hope that you will give some thought to those whose testimonials might carry the most power and weight.

To start us off, here is a quote drawn from a testimonial by actor and writer Kate McGroarty, reflecting on her experience living at Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry for a month in 2010: “I learned that science is beautiful, engaging, and just about everywhere. It amazes me, intrigues me, and excites me. I’m sure this is the beginning of a lifetime relationship with science and everything that comes along with it.”

This blend that defines UNESCO is mirrored in the work of science centers and museums all around the world. Recognizing this, ASTC has formed a strong partnership with UNESCO during the past two years that has, in turn, given greater visibility to a wealth of activities within our field to help raise local awareness about sustainable development, youth empowerment, greater access for women to careers in science, and many more topics that are precisely the issues defined as UN global priorities.

It is no surprise, therefore, that we should join with UNESCO in celebrating this new “international year.” It offers another important opportunity to highlight all that we do to educate and inform, in his case about the importance of collaborative action for water management in the face of increasing global water demand. Today, 780 million people lack access to safe drinking water, and 2.5 billion lack access to sanitation.

Few topics impacting humanity today are so deeply rooted in and so critically dependent upon the tools of science and technology. Having spent a considerable portion of my own public service career devoted to the topic of “water diplomacy,” I learned quickly that scientists and engineers often proved to be my most valued colleagues. On one occasion, I recall asking our then–Middle East peace negotiator why a topic as important as water was not included centrally in the highly charged policy exchanges underway at the time. He responded that the water deliberations were far too essential and immediate in their impact to be included in these unpredictable and volatile rounds of policy negotiations. Rather, a critical compromise on water would best be achieved through the dedicated (and objective) efforts of scientists, engineers, and a public that understood the important variables at stake. This, in my view, is another example of science at its highest calling.

While much has already been said, written, and even undertaken to meet the critical challenges of global water access and management, the year ahead is specifically dedicated to fostering greater global cooperation. As we elevate this topic in our own communities, let’s also find ways to be voices for communities of greater need, sometimes far from our own. I hope that we will be able to achieve cooperation through the heightened awareness and collective voice that we bring to this important topic.

I was struck by an article in a recent edition of Science magazine (September 28, 2012; p. 1623) that discussed new studies concerning scientific thinking in young children. The thrust of the article is that, when even very young children think and learn, they employ intuitive processes that are directly analogous to the fundamentals of scientific inquiry. Children make detailed observations of their worlds, systematically formulating hypotheses, experimenting, analyzing, revising, and making decisions in essentially the same rigorous fashion that defines good science.

While this notion may seem obvious and simple, it actually contradicts historical theories of cognitive development that depicted young children as irrational chance-takers whose observations and conclusions of the here and now required considerable external direction as part of cognitive growth. Yet, empirical evidence now clearly demonstrates that children are innately equipped with a considerable amount of basic intuitive capability that is continuously tested and validated in ways that parallel the logical processes of scientific thinking.

I drew several conclusions from this research that can have important implications for the ways in which science centers and museums everywhere characterize their impacts in the educational arena. The research suggests that young children have both the intuitive capacity and the preference to “think like scientists.” It is the way they naturally think. We speak so often about our role in helping children come to understand these processes and employ them when, in fact, our approach in science centers and museums is more to reinforce children’s cognitive predispositions and to help them validate their own approaches. Children enjoy the science center and museum experience because it allows them to do what they do best. And what greater satisfaction, confidence boost, and sheer enjoyment than to have one’s inherent skills so positively reinforced?

It may be a subtle point in this research, but as we introduce our young visitors to the vast world of science, connecting them with processes that they already feel within, we are helping them to trust those methods of thinking and learning, and we are using science to help them build self-assurance about ways to view so many other dimensions of their lives. As we focus on transforming minds with scientific inspiration, let’s be reminded as well that science is already at work in the poised and prepared minds that come to play.

We still hold our scientists in high regard for their intelligence, curiosity, and determination. But we demand better communication. After all, we may never hope to fully comprehend the science of crippling diseases or the Higgs boson, but we know that fear arises when open communication with our scientists is lost and trust is broken. Science centers and museums help communicate the relevance of science and the excitement of discovery.

And today, our global society has expanded its fascination to include the creative change makers among us: the innovators. Here, too, our science centers have an important responsibility. There are countless articles written about the five (or seven or ten) critical skills of the successful innovator. The book The Innovator’s DNA describes five so-called “discovery skills”: associating, questioning, observing, networking, and experimenting. The analysis states further that these five skills are not innate—and ironically they often come more naturally to youth and diminish with age.

In fact, most science centers and museums strive (and largely succeed) to encourage these discovery skills in myriad ways. So what is our task today? We will certainly continue our hallmark approach of inquiry, observation, networking varied perspectives on issues, and experimentation. But, let’s also acknowledge that today’s tech-savvy generation has not eliminated some of the same probing questions of my mother’s era. Are we helped or hindered, informed or invaded, freed or shackled by rapidly evolving innovations in our lives?

To these concerns, our attention to the first discovery skill—associating—can be key. This skill refers to an appreciation of the societal context into which innovation will be introduced and the ensuing implications (positive or negative, real or perceived). With this perspective in mind, innovation can be an exciting, nonthreatening prospect for the creator and for the beneficiary.

So, let’s encourage in our visitors the discovery skills that can yield the most far-reaching and novel results. Let’s also cultivate in our young creators this sense of associating. The greatest innovators succeed not because their skills and perspectives are so different from the every day, but because they comprehend the every day so deeply as to recognize the ramifications of change and create accordingly.

Sherry once said that, for nearly a decade after undertaking his groundbreaking research, he could not get invited into a college classroom to lecture, much less excel among his peers. He was challenged at every turn. And yet, through scientific rigor and sheer perseverance, his work was translated from the laboratory into policy in one of the most progressive international measures ever envisioned: the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

A July 1990 Washington Post editorial noted, “Getting 92 governments to agree on anything, let alone on an environmental rule affecting dozens of industries, surely ranks as one of the more improbable feats of the season.” In my policy role at the time, I was charged with seeing these measures implemented, and I maintain that it was the irrepressible determination of the scientists, more than anything else, that underscored the actions taken by governments, businesses, and the general public to control CFCs—and on an accelerated schedule.

Sherry Rowland was not the only “lone messenger” of science to emerge from history. But, unlike the often referenced epic challenges to the theories of Copernicus or Galileo, Sherry defended himself not against vehement opposition, but rather perceived irrelevance. Copernicus challenged Ptolemy’s idea of a geocentric universe at the risk of death. Sherry challenged science and business, arguably preserving the planet, and yet would have been ignored and dismissed without review had he not doggedly persevered. He succeeded ultimately by his tenacity and performance as a scientist.

As science centers and museums, we are in the business of training young minds. I hope that, as we work to help whole groups of individuals—from visiting school groups to science clubs to youth program participants—better appreciate science in our world today, we will take special note of that one individual in each group who disregards, questions, or otherwise challenges group convention in order to test a personal hypothesis. That individual is in the company of greatness, inspired by the likes of F. Sherwood Rowland.

Implicit in this well-worn expression is the purity of inquiry, the virtue of asking, and the excitement of self-initiated discovery.

The adage comes to mind as I reflect on an interesting workshop on inquiry-based learning (IBL) that convened just prior to the start of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Annual Meeting, held in February in Vancouver, Canada. My thanks to AAAS and to Science World British Columbia, TELUS World of Science (our ASTC-member science center in Vancouver) for organizing and hosting this workshop.

The workshop afforded me the opportunity to present some highlights of the science center field and the work of our association. Yet I was struck, more broadly, by the distressing commentary by workshop participants about the near absence of IBL in the classroom today; rather, that there is a perceived disposition within the formal education community against learning that is both student centered and teacher guided.

Although this is not new information, it is no small matter for science centers on several levels. Clearly, we exemplify the principles of IBL, and we point to these principles to defend our impact in the education realm—giving knowledge meaningful real-world connections, transferring concepts to applications, encouraging the use of critical thinking skills, and creating a sense of personal commitment to learning. Moreover, we pride ourselves on offering teachers a wide range of training and support programs to help them employ IBL techniques in their classrooms. Stating the obvious, then, we do not win the case for the valuable role that science centers and museums play in education unless we help to counter those who still harbor some skepticism about IBL’s fundamental value.

There is a link to media here. While we grapple with these fundamentals, our youth are taking the initiative, knowingly or otherwise, to employ every media-based tool at their disposal to turn curiosity into knowledge. Studies show that K–12 students overwhelmingly agree that access to digital media (particularly interactive tools) is enhancing their learning experiences. With media tools, they are demonstrating IBL at work, individually and collectively.

The diverse media enterprise has many curiosity inspiring materials to offer our science centers and museums. And much can be achieved with modest investment. For example, through the ASTC global program SCEnaRioS (Science Centers Engagement and the Rio Summit), science center–based students worldwide are exploring sustainability issues through the medium of video.

So, as we ponder the significance of IBL, can it be that we need look no further for examples of success than this discovery-driven bond between students and media?

Not a bad question…

Where are those sources of imaginative innovation today? Where is the counterbalance to the apocalyptic tones of so many writers (and game designers) and the scientific skepticism and innovation risk aversion emerging in the general public?

Stephenson makes a call to his fellow SF writers for a more exciting, inspirational “Big Stuff Gets Done” approach to science literature. I see clear parallels in the work of our science centers and museums. Our ability to present the facts of science is not in question, and our desire to inspire generations of interest in science is understood. But are we featuring the risk-reward ratio of science as it applies to innovation or that unpredictable journey (complete with occasional dead-ends) from research to new exciting technologies?

ASTC is taking on this challenge with the formation of a new thought group specifically designed to promote more innovation-related themes in our science centers and museums—not just the advent of new gadgets, but the inspirational pathways that make this innovation possible. There is a changemaker in all of us, and society has come to count on this quality to meet our basic needs, enliven our lives, and confront our greatest global challenges.

Innovation starts with “tinkering,” and this is frequently well featured in many of our institutions. And yet, somehow, resistance to and trepidation about change can creep into our collective mindset. Let’s find ways to quell that notion and give our youth a future of “techno-optimism” not “techno-phobia.” To learn more about the new innovation thought group, contact Kate Crawford.

In a relaxed venue, this diverse group explored the science issues that are most vexing in our world today and the topics only just visible on the edges of the horizon. The group examined, as well, the constantly changing ways in which the public obtains (and retains) science information now and in the foreseeable future.

In this, my first opportunity to participate in the annual event, I offered information about how science centers and museums engage our communities in science and educate and inspire our youth. As the discussion proceeded, I could see the illuminating “light bulbs of understanding” in the room about the many ways in which science centers and museums can integrate with other forms of science learning to excite audiences. I, too, came away with intriguing new ideas about blended approaches to science learning.

But one message emerged perhaps most clearly in all of the discussions. While these many approaches to science learning may at times appear unpredictable or maybe even chaotic, today’s growing “Wikipedia culture” is generally comfortable with this fluidity. Our field does remarkably well in capturing this dynamic as we design our science center and museum activities.

As if there were any doubts that the simplest and most unpredictable of tools have the potential to yield the greatest impact, I attempted to dazzle my colleagues at the retreat by concluding my presentation with a brief discussion of the two-minute video of the “quantum levitation” demonstration by Tel Aviv University researchers at the 2011 ASTC Annual Conference in Baltimore this past October. This video received an astounding 5 million views in its first week on YouTube and was subsequently featured in international media (providing excellent publicity for ASTC, I might add.)

I was taken by the fact that so many in the group were already familiar with this arcane area of physics. Why? Because, as it turns out, nearly 90% of the august attendees at this event in the beautiful Colorado mountains had already seen the YouTube video themselves!

As I reflect on my experience at 6SCWC, I would like to make both an observation and an affirmation concerning our field today. I have observed that we often describe the common thread of our work as providing experiential learning environments, while viewing our endeavors to embrace cultural diversity as a subset of these efforts.

While I do not diminish the significance of this common theme, I feel that 6SCWC did a marvelous job in “inverting” the emphasis, demonstrating how we can engage diverse cultures first and foremost, with science and learning playing a vital role in strengthening these cultures. Included in this message is the value of cross-cultural understanding, the relevance of Indigenous knowledge, and the importance of ancient science to us now and in the future.

My second point is an affirmation of our field’s work to engage the public on vital (if sensitive) topics, with respect for wide-ranging worldviews. Years ago, while working in Paris, I was visited by a team of legal experts whose mission was to learn the varied public perspectives on the then-emerging field of genetics and biotechnology. With tremendous foresight, this group recognized that navigating the provocative issues raised by this new field would depend not solely upon “hard science,” but also upon diverse societal and cultural orientations.

I am delighted that, in exactly this spirit, a newly formed Community of Practice on Public Engagement in Science will explore best practices and challenges in engaging diverse communities in myriad issues at the intersection of science and society. Many thanks to the science center leaders who are forming this group, one of the growing number of professional development tools offered by ASTC. For more information, contact ASTC’s Laura Huerta Migus.

More than ever, though, our local leaders are recognizing that lasting and positive policies require not only scientific rigor and integrity, but also transparency and determined efforts to build and retain public trust—which begins with a fundamental public grasp of the science in the policies.

Science centers and museums strive to be valued learning environments and trusted platforms for engagement between citizens, scientists, and decision makers. From our perspective, we may feel a growing confidence that we are serving these needs in our local communities. Yet, this perspective may not be entirely recognized by key stakeholders and decision makers who are charged with representing the public’s best interests on these critical issues.

Within the very communities that we serve, our local leaders are tackling wide-ranging, interrelated challenges—greener cities; sustainable energy and transport systems; land and water use; health and wellness in diverse populations; innovations for progress, security, and education; and more—all embracing key aspects of science and technology.

On these topics, we have an opportunity not just to inform, but to be enormously proactive in bringing local actors together around issues of science, commerce, culture, and public policy. We should envision science centers and museums as the brokers and the builders of alliances between policymakers and the publics that they serve.