The Science Museum BP partnership that funded training for more than 11,000 science and education professionals has quietly concluded, with the contract ending on 31 August 2026, and the official explanation raises more questions than it settles.
Sir Ian Blatchford, director and chief executive of the Science Museum Group, confirmed the split in terms that were notably warm. BP’s ‘generous contributions,’ he said, had helped inspire those 11,000 professionals and reach ‘more than 1 million young people across the country.’ That is not the language of an institution relieved to be free of a toxic partner.
Campaigners, understandably, see it differently. Chris Garrard of Culture Unstained called the decision a ‘seismic shift’ following years of pressure from educators, schools and activists. ‘BP’s commitment to climate action was never worth the paper it was written on,’ Garrard said, ‘but the Science Museum’s director passionately championed his partnership with the major polluter year after year.’ He has a point, up to a point.
What the Science Museum BP Partnership Actually Was
The relationship stretches back roughly 25 years in total. According to the Museums Association, BP sponsored major exhibitions including ‘Cosmonauts: Birth of the Space Age,’ which closed in 2016. The formal academy arrangement grew from ‘Enterprising Science,’ a five-year collaboration between the Science Museum Group, King’s College London, University College London, and BP that developed the concept of ‘science capital’ to understand how young people engage with science.
When the Science Museum Group Academy launched in 2018, Susan Raikes, its Director of Learning, was explicit about the ambition: ‘Founding the Science Museum Group Academy of Science Engagement with BP enables us to strengthen and consolidate our work to increase science capital across the UK.’ That was the pitch. It ran, at least formally, until the end of August this year.
The timing is awkward. The Art Newspaper reports that the current sponsorship agreement, which began in 2018, had previously been described as a ten-year deal expected to run until 2028. The museum has not clarified why it concluded two years early. That gap deserves an answer.
The Inconvenient Detail the Campaigners Gloss Over
Here is where the narrative gets complicated. When the museum cut ties with Equinor in 2024, the reason was explicit: Equinor had failed to meet the museum’s own climate benchmarks. The Science Museum Group requires energy-sector partners involved in fossil fuel extraction to reach at least Level 4 on the Transition Pathway Initiative’s management quality index and demonstrate long-term alignment with the 1.5°C Paris climate pathway.
BP, as of June 2025, was at Level 5 on that index and on track for long-term alignment with the 2050 target. Unlike Equinor, BP was not pushed out for failing the museum’s own tests. The museum has not cited climate non-compliance as the reason for ending this deal. That matters, because it means the campaigners’ framing (that the museum finally came to its senses about a reckless polluter) is not quite the full picture.
It is also worth noting that internal documents obtained by Culture Unstained include an email dated 17 April 2025 from a museum staff member to BP stating it was ‘great to meet you both in person and extremely interesting and helpful to learn more about ways in which we can continue and evolve the powerful work currently.’ Continuation was apparently being discussed barely four months before the contract closed.
In June 2025, an education union called on schools to boycott the museum over what it described as ‘image-laundering’ sponsorship deals, with scientists, teachers and culture workers protesting outside over both the BP and Adani Green Energy arrangements. The pressure was real. Whether it, rather than any contractual logic, drove the early conclusion is a question the museum has not answered.
And the Adani question remains entirely open. Garrard himself acknowledged the decision was only a ‘partial victory’: the museum continues to take money from Adani Green Energy Ltd, a subsidiary of one of the world’s largest private coal mining and energy conglomerates. The Equinor precedent is instructive here too: that earlier contract contained a gagging clause preventing staff from making comments that could ‘discredit or damage the goodwill or reputation’ of the company, according to The Guardian. The museum pledged to remove such clauses from future partnerships. Whether the BP deal contained one has not been disclosed.
The academy’s BP-funded courses remain available to book for 2026. The Adani relationship continues. Watch what the museum does when that contract comes up for renewal.
