Skip to main content
Monthly Archives

March 2011

One-day meeting on 'Curating science', London, 6 May

By Biomedicine in museums

The upcoming one-day conference ‘Curating Science’ at Kingston University in London on 6 May — bringing together curators and communicators from museums, galleries and new sites of engagement to explore the role of science in the exhibition — looks sort of interesting

  • Intersections in Art, Science and Society: Nicola Triscott, Director, The Arts Catalyst
  • Turning the Museum Inside Out: exploring the challenges of interfacing scientific research with public engagement at the Darwin Centre: Louise Fitton, Senior Interpretation Developer, Natural History Museum
  • Good Conversations: exhibits to encourage dialogue and reflection: Kat Nilsson, Contemporary Science Manager, Science Museum
  • Curating ‘Lab Craft’ : digital adventures in contemporary craft: Max Fraser, Design Writer and Curator
  • Art-object/science-object: a narrative of curating: Caterina Albano, Curator at Artakt and Fellow at CSM Innovation Centre
  • Curating Earth: art of a changing world: Edith Devaney, Head of Summer Exhibition and Curator, Royal Academy

See more here: www.curatingscience.com; 10GBP tickets here: curatingscience.eventbrite.com

What intellectual and practical approaches should be developed to document and preserve the history of recent science and technology?

By Biomedicine in museums

Actual and potential readers of this blog — that is, everyone with an interest in contemporary medical science and technology in museums — might be interested in this year’s meeting in the Artefacts series on the theme ‘Conceptualizing, Collecting and Presenting Recent Science and Technology’, to take place 25-27 September, 2011, in the Museum Boerhaave, Leiden.

The central questions for the meeting are:

  • What intellectual and practical approaches should be developed to document and preserve the history of recent science and technology?:
  • How can museums and academic communities develop an overview of the breadth and diversity of material culture associated with recent science and technology created at a variety of sites (universities, industry, government, and other venues) and scales of activity (local, national, and international)?
  • How do we develop criteria of selection to capture salient themes and transformations?’
  • What connections do we wish draw between artefacts as evidence and research questions of historians and other scholars?
  • What are the practical challenges in collecting and storing the types of artefacts, images, electronic expressions, and other products distinctive of recent history?
  • What forms of collaboration among museum and academic communities might help in addressing these challenges?
  • And, not least, how does such an effort relate to exhibitions and public outreach?

The organisers invite papers discussing the above questions and other themes dealing with the material history of recent science and technology. Paper presentations are limited to 20 minutes. The conference language is English.

Send abstract proposals of <200 words to Museum Boerhaave’s Head of Collections, Hans Hooijmaijers, hanshooijmaijers@museumboerhaave.nl before 1 July 2011. Also include a short biography highlighting main research interests (no more than 50 words).

The meeting will start in the afternoon of Sunday 25 September with a pre-conference tour around Museum Boerhaave, followed by a plenary lecture and drinks. Monday 26 and Tuesday 27 September will be devoted to paper presentations.

And for those who don’t know it yet, Artefacts is an association of historians of science and technology, mostly based in museums and academic institutions, who share the goal of promoting the use of objects in serious historical studies. This is done at annual meetings, in a book series and through encouraging the efforts of historically-oriented museums of science and technology.

Martha Fleming on "Museum as Material, Exhibition as Scholarly Publication” at the Danish Royal Academy of Art, Friday 1 April, 1-3 pm.

By Biomedicine in museums

Martha Fleming, who was head curator on our award-winning exhibition Split & Splice: Fragments from the Age of Biomedicine (2009-2010) will speak at the Danish Royal Academy of Art on Friday 1 April. The title of her talk is “Museum as Material, Exhibition as Scholarly Publication”.

What does it mean to consider an institution to be a kind of ‘material’? What sort of research is it possible for an artist to effect inside a science museum? What does research itself mean in different scholarly contexts, and how does the artist facilitate interdisciplinarity beyond the studio and the gallery? This seminar will be of interest to those who want to know about intellectual and logistical issues of working with non-art museums, those whose conceptual work engages with science practice and history and philosophy of science, and those interested in the work that has come out of the radical aesthetics of 1980s site specific projects. Martha Fleming has made large-scale site specific installations, museum collection interpretation projects, and now works at the Natural History Museum in London. She will be speaking about her work as an artist, as a museum professional and as an historian of science.

The lecture takes place in the Italian Auditorium, 1 Kongens Nytorv, Copenhagen,  at 1 pm.

Some background reading:

  • www.marthafleming.net
  • Studiolo: The Collaborative Projects of Martha Fleming and Lyne Lapointe (Artextes 1997)
  • “Feminisms is Still Our Name: Seven Essays on Historiography and Curatorial Practices”. Editor: Malin Hedlin Hayden and Jessica Sjöholm Skrubbe (Cambridge Scholars 2010)

Can someone tell me what "a heuristic device waiting to be filled with meaning" means?

By Biomedicine in museums

I’m a sucker for old analytical-philosophical virtues. That is, I like to analyse words and phrases in the light of common experience and ordinary language. I love to ask simple questions, like “What do you actually mean by X”?

My desire for analytical philosophy was triggered again the other day when I recieved the call for a conference titled ‘Bio-objects for Europe?’ organised by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) programme.

The basic idea behind the conference (and the network it is supposed to launch) is “the understanding that whilst the bio-sciences do different things in different places and mean different things to different actors, much can be learnt if we try to assemble these different things—as well as the researchers that conduct research on them”. It’s these assemblages of things and researchers (did someone say ANT?) they call ‘bio-objects’.

And here comes the juicy part that triggered my desire:

In a nutshell, ‘bio-objects’ refer to new living materials that disrupt formerly established boundaries and modes of ordering, as well as to ‘old matters of life’ that are ‘revitalized’ when brought into new spaces. However, rather than a ready-made concept—or even Theory with a capital T—‘bio-objects’ are a new heuristic device – or, in one sense, a boundary object – that is waiting to be filled with meaning. Filling bio-objects with meaning by drawing on empirical research on bio-objects, following their making and stabilization, their movements and circulations, their trajectories and life lines, and their governance and regulation, in different spaces and at different scales, is the ambition of this Action. In doing so, we want to provide both new analytical and policy-relevant contributions towards the understanding and oversight of these troublesome ‘creatures’.

which makes me want to ask some old-school analytical questions, like:

  • what’s “new living materials” as opposed to “old living materials”?
  • what does it actually mean that “new living materials … disrupt formerly established boundaries”?
  • how can “‘old matters of life'” (note the inverted commas) be “‘revitalized'” (note again the inverted commas)
  • what’s the difference between “Theory with a capital T” and just ‘theory’?
  • what’s the difference between “a new heuristic device” and “a ready-made object”?
  • “or, in one sense, a boundary object” — which are the other sense(s)?
  • one the one hand, ‘bio-objects’ “refer” to “new living materials” (whatever that is). On the other hand ‘bio-objects’ is “a heuristic device … waiting to be filled with meaning” — is there (maybe) a slight contradiction here?
  • I’d love to understand what a heuristic device not yet filled with meaning looks like 🙂 

And then, of course, there are all the usual buzz-words — objects are ‘made’ and ‘stabilized’, they ‘move’ and ‘circulate’, they have ‘trajectories’ and ‘life lines’. ‘Boundaries’ are, of course, always ‘disrupted’ and everything takes place in ‘spaces’ (never in places). And don’t forget that objects are always ‘ordered’, ‘governed’ and ‘regulated’.

“In a nutshell”, sometimes I wonder (inspired by my good friend and former colleague Hanne) if some of these conference announcements are generated by a web-based bullshit generator?

Martha Fleming taler om "Museum as Material, Exhibition as Scholarly Publication” på Kunstakademiet på fredag

By Biomedicine in museums

Martha Fleming, som var hovedkurator på vores udstilling Del & Hel: Brudstykker fra Biomedicinens Tid (2009-2010) taler om “Museum as Material, Exhibition as Scholarly Publication” på Kunstakademiets Billedkunstskoler, fredag den 1. april, kl. 13-15.

What does it mean to consider an institution to be a kind of ‘material’? What sort of research is it possible for an artist to effect inside a science museum? What does research itself mean in different scholarly contexts, and how does the artist facilitate interdisciplinarity beyond the studio and the gallery? This seminar will be of interest to those who want to know about intellectual and logistical issues of working with non-art museums, those whose conceptual work engages with science practice and history and philosophy of science, and those interested in the work that has come out of the radical aesthetics of 1980s site specific projects. Martha Fleming has made large-scale site specific installations, museum collection interpretation projects, and now works at the Natural History Museum in London. She will be speaking about her work as an artist, as a museum professional and as an historian of science.

Det foregår i det italienske auditorium, Kongens Nytorv 1, København.

Og så lidt background reading:

  • www.marthafleming.net
  • Studiolo: The Collaborative Projects of Martha Fleming and Lyne Lapointe (Artextes 1997)
  • “Feminisms is Still Our Name: Seven Essays on Historiography and Curatorial Practices”. Editor: Malin Hedlin Hayden and Jessica Sjöholm Skrubbe (Cambridge Scholars 2010)

What's actually meant by the "life" and "biography" of new materials?

By Biomedicine in museums

Historians and curators of medicine might be interested in the conference ‘The Life of New Materials’ organised by the Hagley Museum and Library, the Chemical Heritage Foundation, and the Philadelphia Area Center for History of Science ,17 – 18 November 2011.

The conference will explore “the lives of the new materials that have made possible many of the technological advances of our age. Whether based on plant, metal, chemical, or nano technologies, the development, use, re-use, and disposal of new materials is an embedded feature of our industrial society”. The organisers wish to understand “the relationships from which new materials emerge, and which they in turn often refashion”, and they are especially interested in proposals that focus on

The life history of a new material: its biography, use cycle, place in supply chains, or features as material culture. We encourage papers to address the reasons and methods for development of a new material: its design, manufacture, testing, and subsequent incorporation into final products or already existing technologies; its reuse or disposal after completion of its primary purpose; and its impact –anticipated or not–on subsequent innovations. Exploration of the creation of new materials should situate those scientific and technological processes within the commercial, institutional, or social contexts that lead to their development.

It’s a great topic for historical and museological investigations. My only caveat is the peculiar use of the terms ‘life’, ‘life history’ and ‘biography’ in this context. What do they actually mean when they suggest that, say, plastic has a ‘life’ and that it can be written as a ‘biography’? What is meant by a ‘biography’ of polystyrene? What does this metaphorical use of the notion of ‘life’ and ‘biography’ add to our understanding?

In my view absolutely nothing. Such unnecessary metaphors only confound the issues at stake. I know it has become fashionable to speak about the ‘life’ and ‘biography’ of inanimate things, but when the metaphors are extended from things to materials in general, fashion becomes folly.

Anyway, deadline for proposals is 1 April.  Travel support will be available for those presenting at the conference. More details here.

Studies in disposable culture

By Biomedicine in museums

A fairly new (from August 2010) blog called Discard Studies explores the contemporary throw-away culture.

One of their recent hot topics is plastic pollution of the oceans. All oceans, especially the North Pacific, contains millions of tons of discarded man-made plastic items. They are largely non-biodegradable, which means they will only disappear slowly through physical wear — which can take many decades for a plastic bottle.

I wonder how much of this plastic pollution consists of disposable medical plastics (syringes, gloves, desinfectant wipes, urinary swabs, stool caps, drainage bags, ostomy bags — you name it)?

(For an earlier post on disposable plastics in biomedicine, see here.)

Who shall have the Dibner prize in 2011?

By Biomedicine in museums

Last year, we were the proud recipients of the Society for the History of Technology (SHOT) Dibner Award for Excellence in Museum Exhibits, an award that recognises museums and exhibits that interpret the history of technology, industry and engineering to the general public.

Now SHOT is inviting nominations for the 2011 Dibner Award. Exhibits are eligible for this award if they have been open to the public for no more than 24 months before the deadline for nominations. Virtual exhibits are not eligible. Anyone, including the institution or individual responsible for its creation, may nominate an exhibit for the Dibner Award. See the nomination form and further details here.

Historicisation — a postgrad course in Bergen next August

By Biomedicine in museums

Representing one the peripherally participating institutions in the Nordic Network for Medical History, I’m pleased to broadcast the good news about the upcoming summer course on ‘Historicisation’ to be held in Bergen, 24–26 August, 2011.

The aim of the course is to teach postgraduate students how medical historical research can be ‘historicised’. As the organisers write, “just how historians, social scientists and others proceed in order to do this varies”:

For instance, the ‘proper’ context in which an object of study can be placed may look rather different for historians and medical scientists – as may indeed what constitutes the object of study itself. Historicisation may imply a denaturalisation of certain objects of study, such as the body, illness or disease categories – or an evaluation based on our prevalent knowledge of nature of how specific diseases have historically been dealt with. The narratives into which certain objects of study are written may differ for social scientists and historians: for instance, the historical development of medical institutions may be inscribed in historical narratives as examples of broad societal processes such as ‘modernisation’– or be seen as effectuating social changes in a specific place at a specific time. This part of the summer course discusses the various ways of historicising common objects of study within history of health and medicine. What does it mean to historicise diseases, medical practices or technologies, and how do we go about doing it? What differences are there between historical, social sciences and medical approaches towards understanding historical phenomena, and which consequences follow from different approaches to historical understanding?

Best of all, there is no course fee; the organisers will cover accommodation and meals (but you have to pay for your own travel). Write to magnus.vollset@ahkr.uib.no with information about your name, project title and disciplinary background. Indicate whether or not you read any of the Nordic languages, and whether or not accommodation in a double room is ok with you. If you have any questions concerning the course please do not hesitate to contact Magnus Registration deadline is 1 May 2011.

On top of this they are circulating a useful reading list:

  • Ankersmit, Frank. Historical representation. Cultural Memory in the Present. Stanford, 2001. Ch. 3 (”Gibbon and Ovid: History as Metamorphosis”, pp. 107-122, and ch. 4 (“The Dialectics of Narrativist Historism”, pp. 123-148.
  • Hammerborg, Morten. Spedalskhet, galeanstalter og laboratoriemedisin – endringsprosesser i medisinen på 1800-tallet i Bergen. Ph.d.avhandling, Universitetet i Bergen 2009, pp. 19-41 (kapittel 1: Beretningen om et sammenbrudd).
  • Lie, Anne Kveim. Radesykens tilblivelse. Historien om en sykdom. Dr.med.avhandling, Universitetet i Oslo 2008, pp. 11-29, 209-226.
  • Davidson, Roger and Lesley A. Hall. Introduction. In Davidson, Roger and Lesley A. Hall. Sex, Sin and Suffering. Venereal Disease and European society since 1870. London and New York 2001. pp. 1-14.
  • Dinges, Martin. Social History of medicine in Germany and France in the Late Twentieth Century: From the History of Medicine toward a History of health. In Huisman, Frank and John Harley Warner (eds). Locating Medical History. The Stories and their meaning. Baltimore and London 2004, pp. 209-236.
  • Duffin, Jacalyn. Lovers and livers: disease concepts in history. Toronto: University of Toronto  Press, 2005.
  • Jordanova, Ludmilla. The Social Construction of Medical Knowledge. In Huisman, Frank and John Harley Warner (eds). Locating Medical History. The Stories and their meaning. Baltimore and London 2004, pp. 338-363.
  • Roelcke, Volker. Changing historiographies and professional identities: nazi medical atrocities in post-World War II German psychiatry. In Andresen, Astri, William Hubbard and Teemu Ryymin (eds). International and Local Approaches to Health and Health Care. Oslo 2010, pp.49-78.
  • Rosenberg, Charles E. Explaining Epidemics. In Rosenberg; Charles E. (ed.). Explaining Epidemics and Other Studies in the History of Medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 293-304.
  • Warner, John Harley. The History of Science and the Sciences of Medicine. Osiris 10 (1995), pp. 164-193.
  • Wilson, Adrian. On the History of Disease Concepts: The Case of Pleurisy. History of Science, 38:3, 2000, pp. 271-319.

The Picture a Museum Day event yesterday — see Medical Museion's pictures and photographers here

By Biomedicine in museums

We’re pretty proud of being the fourth most energetic contributor to Flickr and Twitter’s joint Picture a Museum Day event yesterday.

The top contributor was Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam with 758 pics, and we were #4 with 197 contributions.

See all of our 197 pics here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/53284874@N02/sets/72157626284530510.

The day was expertly planned and managed by our new social web officer, Daniel, and most of our staff contributed. Started with coffee and buns and people were then distributed in photo sessions throughout the day.

And here are my photos of some of the staff in action: