paris

A new science centre being financed by Britain's national lottery as a replacement for Bristol's popular Exploratory is facing criticism that its exhibits lack any serious scientific content.

Critics argue that the new centre, which is called Explore at Bristol, is forsaking science in favour of high technology and spectacular visual impact. Among the most vocal critics are scientists who were linked with the Exploratory, one of Britain's first science centres, which is closing its doors and transferring its exhibits to Explore.

The Exploratory consisted of exhibits, known as ‘plores’, that illustrated scientific principles, for example those of electromagnetism. The new centre, on the other hand, will boast crowd-pleasers such as a walk-in womb and a virtual-reality exhibit in which visitors can ride on the back of sperm from ejaculation to fertilization.

Sir Michael Berry, a professor of physics at the University of Bristol and a science adviser to the Exploratory, was unimpressed when he visited a preview of the new centre last week with his 11-year-old daughter. “The building and setting are wonderful. But when you go inside, it's actually very disappointing,” he says. “I found it to be an intellectually tatty version of the Exploratory.”

The Exploratory, along with a wildlife centre now called Wildscreen, formed the basis of a successful bid for a £41 million ($66 million) grant towards the project from the Millennium Commission, which receives money from the national lottery. The bid was put together by a consortium known as Bristol 2000, and now calling itself at-Bristol. The Exploratory will close next week, with the new centre set to open in spring. In addition, the Exploratory's staff of 30 will need to find new positions.

The Exploratory was created in the early 1980s by Richard Gregory, an emeritus professor of neuropsychology at the University of Bristol who had previously been involved in building a similar hands-on centre in San Francisco called the Exploratorium. Gregory has been involved in the creation of the new centre and says the idea behind it was to create an updated version of the Exploratory.

But Gregory and several of Explore's other scientific advisers complain that their opinions have been sidelined by the directors of at-Bristol. As a result, one of them says, the new centre lacks the “intellectual rigour” that distinguished the Exploratory. “We were supposed to be part of Explore but we got kind of rejected,” Gregory says. “We found ourselves destroyed after 20 years.”

About 30 per cent of Exploratory's exhibits will be on display in the new centre, with the rest being used for outreach programs or sold to raise funds. Explore needs to raise another £4.5 million to stay on budget.

Gregory says he hopes that more of the Exploratory will be incorporated into the new centre, but at-Bristol's directors say this is unlikely. Nicholas Hood, chairman of at-Bristol, admits: “We haven't listened to [the scientific advisers] as closely as we should have.” He adds that his organization has been “boxed into a remorseless calendar” in its bid to open soon after the Millennium.

Describing Explore's approach, Hood says: “Some people who are not as scientifically driven will be likely to say, ‘wow’. And it's the ‘wow’ factor that we are searching for.”

Colin Blakemore, a professor of physiology at Oxford and a member of Explore's scientific advisory committee, agrees with Hood that it was the time factor that excluded the scientists from the planning process. He hopes that future discussions with at-Bristol will eventually improve the scientific quality of the project.