The law of political point-scoring came into effect yesterday. Science was the catalyst. This might have been appropriate. But it was unhelpful that the new funding package for Glasgow Science Centre should be the focus of a spat between the Westminster and Holyrood governments. In London, Gordon Brown said the SNP administration in Edinburgh would live to regret the decision to make a 40% cut in funding for the centre. Pete Wishart, the SNP culture spokesman at Westminster, accused the Prime Minister and fellow Labour MPs of scaremongering. Funding for Scotland's four science centres would increase by £250,000, he said.

What is clear, amid the mudslinging, is that Glasgow's reduced share of the overall package could result in the loss of 28 jobs, accounting for more than 20% of the total complement. If the other three centres (Satrosphere in Aberdeen, Sensation in Dundee and Our Dynamic Earth in Edinburgh) are gaining, Glasgow is losing. That is unfortunate and presents the SNP government with a challenge to explain how cutting state spending on the biggest venue of its kind in Scotland furthers the cause of switching more young people on to physics, engineering and technology. This is a cause worth pursuing, given the shortage of graduates with skills in these areas.

Will Glasgow be in a position to play its part so well in the future, given that it will have to do so with fewer staff and less public money? First, it must be stated that additional funding for the other centres is welcome, given that encouraging the uptake of sciences should be a Scotland-wide enterprise. It is a pity that their increases will be made at Glasgow's expense. However, the figures must be kept in perspective. A headline cut of 40% within the next three years looks bad and will result in tough decisions being made to mitigate the effect.

But Glasgow will continue to receive more than half of the total allocation of public funds for the science centres. It helps that the centre has reduced the amount of subsidy required by expanding sales and using facilities in imaginatively commercial ways. Also, visitor numbers have increased significantly. It has shown it can diversify and thrive. The new package means, however, that it must become leaner, smarter and fitter still. That is a challenge at the best of times. It becomes a bigger one in an economic downturn, when belts are being tightened.

The centre has made major strides and, by its efforts, has successfully proselytised for science, engineering and technology. A fairer distribution of the public funding available should help the other centres play their parts. Glasgow's situation should be monitored to establish the impact of its cash cut. It has shown it is no subsidy junkie, but if it emerges that its reduced share of the package has a detrimental effect on its activities, it will be time to think again on the support required.