Biomedicine in museums

Quite a few museums these days are thinking in terms of magic. They (we) are tired of too didactic and explanatory exhibitions. They (we) want to put the magic back into the museums again.

Maybe therefore I noticed Michael Pritchard’s inquiry on rete (my favourite nerd list):

From: michael@mpritchard.com
To: rete@maillist.ox.ac.uk
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 15:46:31 +0000
Subject: [rete] Gallery of Natural Magic
I wondered if anyone list reader knows anything about the Gallery of Natural Magic which was, I suspect, was in London. It exhibited scientific/philosophical instruments in 1839. I cannot find out where it was and when it was in existence and who the proprietor was. Any help would be appreciated.

Regards

Dr Michael Pritchard
www.mpritchard.com
www.britishphotohistory.ning.com

To which “Giles” answers:

It was at the Colosseum, Regent’s Park. Ran 15 June to 19 Oct 1839. According to the newspapers a Dr Faxton or Paxton was the projector and proprietor, assisted by Edward M. Clarke, mathematical instrument maker of Lowther Arcade – although Iwan Morus in several of his books says William Leithead superintended it. (Morus refers to it as the Department of Natural Magic). Larry Schaaf mentions it in his book on Talbot’s Notebooks P & Q.

 

 

The Quantified Self Guide to Self-TrackingA comprehensive collection of apps, devices and other tools for self-tracking, along with user ratings.

MedhelpA free website that allows users to track blood pressure, ovulation, pain, sleep and other factors.

The Quantified Self blogA blog maintained by the Quantified Self community highlighting local events and other developments in self-tracking.

CureTogetherA patient social networking site in which users rank the different treatments they have tried for a number of conditions.

Personal InformaticsA list of resources for people who want to collect personal data.

The Boston Quantified Self MeetupOne of many local chapters of the Quantified Self.

PatientsLikeMeA patient social networking site that provides users with tools to track their symptoms and the effect of different treatments.

Deborah Lupton

http://blog.personalinformatics.org/2010/11/why-should-you-self-track.html

Bak-Jensen, Søren. “Nyretransplantationer i Danmark – mellem vævstypeforlig og immunsuppression”, Ugeskrift for Læger, 167: 4744-4745 (2005).
Bak-Jensen, Søren, “To share or not to share: institutional exchange of cadaver kidneys in Denmark”, Medical History 52: 23-46 (2008).
Bak-Jensen, Søren, “Helping hands? Politics and the image of chiropractic in interwar Denmark”, Chiropractic History, 27: 93-98 (2007).
Bak-Jensen, Søren, “Chiropractic in Denmark”, in: F. J. H. Wilson (ed.), Chiropractic in Europe: An Illustrated History, Leicester 2007: 73-76.
Bak-Jensen, Søren, “Fibiger”, “Friderichsen”, “’Gram”, “Hagedorn”, “Pindborg” og “Salomonsen”, i W. F. Bynum og H. Bynum (red.), Dictionary of Medical Biography, Greenwood Press 2006.
Bauer, Susanne. “Biomedizinische Wissensproduktion in Überdrehung? Zu Meta-Studien als Evidenztechnik”, in: U. Bergermann, C. Hanke og A. Sick (eds), Überdreht, Spindoctoring, Politik, Medien. Bremen 2006: 133-142.
Bauer, Susanne, “Umwelt, Gene, Gender. Multiplikationseffekte im Umfeld der Genomforschung“, NTM. International Journal of History and Ethics of Natural Sciences, Technology and Medicine, 14: 241-250 (2006).
Bauer, Susanne, “The Genomics of environmental response: re/visions in risk assessment?”, in: A. Bammé , G. Getzinger, and B. Wieser (eds.), Yearbook 2006 of the Institute for Advanced Studies on Science, Technology and Society. München/Vienna, 2007: 121-38
Bauer, Susanne and C. Hanke, “Hautfarbengene und Rassismen: Zebrafische als Tiermodelle für Hautpigmentierung“. Gen-ethischer Informationsdienst, 184: 37-38 (2007).
Bauer, Susanne, “Societal and ethical issues in human biomonitoring: a view from science studies”, Environmental Health, 7 (Suppl 1): 1-10 (2008).
Bauer, Susanne, “Mining data, gathering variables, and recombining information: the flexible architecture of epidemiological studies”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. 39: 415-26 (2008).
Bauer, Susanne, “Transparency or surveillance? The datascapes of European public health statistics”, in: Reiche, C and Sick, A: Do not exist: Europe, woman, digital medium. Bremen : Thealit, 2008: 189-203
Bauer, Susanne and Olsén, Jan Eric, “Observing the others, watching over oneself: themes of medical surveillance in post-panoptic society“, Surveillance & Society, 6: 116-127 (2009).
Bauer, Susanne, “Curating and dis/playing the biopolitics of prevention. A risk assessment software as a museum object”, Nord Nytt: Nordisk tidskrift for etnologi och folkloristik, 105: 71-85 (2009).
Bauer, Susanne and Wahlberg, Ayo (eds.), Contested Categories. Life Sciences in Society. Aldershot: Ashgate 2009.
Bauer, Susanne, “From society to molecule and back: the contested scale of public health science”, in: Bauer, S. and Wahlberg, A (eds.), Contested Categories. Life Sciences in Society. Aldershot: Ashgate 2009: 113-34 (in press).
Bencard, Adam, “Life beyond information: contesting life and the body in history and molecular biology”, in: Bauer, S. and Wahlberg, A. (eds.), Contested Categories. Life Sciences in Society. Aldershot: Ashgate 2009: 135-54.
Doel, Ron and Söderqvist, Thomas (eds.) The Historiography of Contemporary Science, Technology and Medicine. London: Routledge 2006.
Doel, Ron and Söderqvist, Thomas, “Introduction: what we know, what we do not, and why it matters”, in: Doel, R. and Söderqvist, T. (eds.) The Historiography of Contemporary Science, Technology and Medicine. London: Routledge 2006: 1-12.
Donald, Diana and Olsén, Jan Eric, “Art and the ‘Entangled Bank’: Colour and Beauty out of the ‘War of Nature’”, in Donald, D. (ed.), Charles Darwin, Natural Science and the Visual Arts, Yale University Press, 2009: 101-117.
Dunér, David and Olsén, Jan Eric: ”Ögonbilder”, Sydsvenska medicinhistoriska sällskapets årsskrift, 2008: 9-42
Hoeyer, Klaus; Nexoe, Sniff; Hartlev, Mette; and Koch, Lene, “Embryonic entitlements: Stem cell patenting and the co-production of commodities and personhood”, Body and Society, 15: 1-24 (2009).
Meyer, Ion and Richter, Jane, “The fate of a nineteenth-century ischiopagus from Denmark”, Journal of the History of Collections, 20: 253-258 (2008).
Mordhorst, Camilla, ”Repræsentationens begrænsning”, in: C. Mordhorst and B. Tøndborg (eds), (Ind)samlinger af det 21. århundrede, København, 2005: 9-23.
Melchior, Marie Riegels and Mordhorst, Camilla (eds.), Udstillingens idé og form. København: Institut for Kunst- og Kulturvidenskab, Københavns Universitet, 2005. 92 pp.
Mordhorst, Camilla. “Det kuriøse kabinet som laboratorium”, pp. 20-27 i H. Teglhus og M.A. Skydsgaard (eds), Ole Worm: Liv og videnskab. Århus 2006.
Mordhorst, Camilla, “Kuriositeternes storhed, fald og mulige genkomst”, Tidskrift for Kulturforskning, 5: 7-24 (2006).
Mordhorst, Camilla, ”Tingenes rige – mellem raritet og repræsentation”, in: Braae. E. and Fabricius Hansen, M. (eds.), Fortiden for tiden: Genbrugskultur og kulturgenbrug i dag. Århus: Arkitektskolens Forlag, 2007: 112-29.
Mordhorst, Camilla, ”Jagten på det ukendte: Ole Worm og indsamlingen af ‘materia medica’”. Standart 22 (3): 38-39 (2008).
Mordhorst, Camilla, Genstandsfortællinger. Fra Museum Wormianum til de moderne museer. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. 219 pp. (in print, September 2009)
Mordhorst, Camilla, ”The story of the magic egg and other provocative specimens from Museum Wormianum”, Journal of the History of Collections (submitted).
Mordhorst, Camilla, “Museer, materialitet og tilstedevær”, in T. Damsholt, D. Gert Simonsen and C. Mordhorst (eds.): Materialiseringer. Århus Universitetsforlag, 16 pp (in print, 2009)
Nexoe, Sniff Andersen, “Gode liv, dårlige liv – problematiseringer og valg i dansk abortpolitik”, in: Glasdam S. (ed.), Folkesundhed – i et kritisk perspektiv, Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk Forlag/Schønberg Forlag/Arnold Busck, 2009: 372-398.
Nexoe, Sniff Andersen and Koch, Lene: “Discourse Analysis”, in: Vallgårda, S. and Koch L.: Research Methods in Public Health. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 2008.
Olsén, Jan Eric, ”Det berusade färgsinnet”, Sydsvenska medicinhistoriska sällskapets årsskrift. 2008: 85-104.
Olsén, Jan Eric, “Surgical vision and digital culture”, in: Edwards, E. and Bhaumik, K. (eds.), Visual Sense: A Cultural Reader, Berg, 2009: 427-32.
Olsén, Jan Eric, “Inside out: transformations of endoscopic vision”, Journal of Visual Culture (submitted).
Olsén, Jan Eric, “The portable clinic: keeping track of the healthy body”, Performance Research 14 (4), special issue: ‘Transplantations”, eds. R. Allsopp and P. Warnell, P. (submitted).
Söderqvist, Thomas. “Kan den moderne biomedicin udstilles på museum?”, Bibliotek for Læger, 197: 171-189 (2005).
Söderqvist, Thomas; Mordhorst, Camilla; Rasmussen, Frank Allan. “Den nye biomedicin på museum”, Ugeskrift for Læger 167 (2005): 4753-55
Söderqvist, Thomas, “What is the use of writing lives of recent scientists?”, pp.99-127 i R. Doel og T. Söderqvist (eds.) The Historiography of Contemporary Science, Technology and Medicine. Routledge 2006.
Söderqvist, Thomas, “Who’s afraid of the recent biomedical heritage?”, Opuscula Musealia, 15 (2006), pp. 99-105.
Söderqvist, Thomas, “Qui te por del patrimoni biomedic contemporani”, Servei d’informacio collegial, 117 (2006), p. 65.
Söderqvist, Thomas, ”At sikre den danske medicinske kulturarv kræver professionalitet og samarbejde”, Ugeskrift for læger, 168: 813-14 (2006).
Söderqvist, Thomas, “Jerne”, in W. F. Bynum og H. Bynum (eds.), Dictionary of Medical Biography, Greenwood Press 2006.
Söderqvist, Thomas. “Niels K. Jerne og selektionsteorien for antistofdannelse”, Ugeskrift for Læger 169 (2007): 2892
Söderqvist, Thomas (ed), The History and Poetics of Scientific Biography, Ashgate 2007.
Söderqvist, Thomas, “A new look at the genre of scientific biography”, i Söderqvist, T. (ed), The History and Poetics of Scientific Biography, Ashgate 2007: 1-16.
Söderqvist, Thomas, “‘No genre of history fell under more odium than that of biography’: the delicate relations between scientific biography and the historiography of science”, i Söderqvist, T. (ed), The History and Poetics of Scientific Biography, Ashgate 2007: 241-62.
Söderqvist, Thomas. “Plutarchian versus Socratic scientific biography”. in Gavroglu, K. and Renn, J. (ed.), Positioning the History of Science, Springer 2007: 159-62,
Söderqvist, Thomas. “Den biomedicinska samtiden som medicinhistorisk utmaning”. pp. 41-48 i Åhrén, E. (ed.) Medicinhistoria i dag. Stockholm 2007.
Söderqvist, Thomas. “Jerne, Niels Kaj”. in Koertge, N. E. (ed.), New Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Detroit: Thomson Gale 2007.
Söderqvist, Thomas; Stillwell, C and Jackson, M. “Immunology”, in Bowler, P.J. and Pickstone J. V. (eds), The Cambridge History of Science, vol. 6: The Modern Biological and Earth Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008: 467-85
Söderqvist, Thomas and Bencard, Adam. “Making sense or sensing the made? Research into presence-production in museums of science, technology and medicine”, in Cavalli-Björkman. G and Lindqvist, S. (eds.), Research and Museums. Stockholm: Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 2008: 161-173.
Söderqvist, Thomas, 免疫学の巨人イェルネ. Tokyo: Igaku Shoin, 2008.
Söderqvist, Thomas; Bencard, Adam and Mordhorst, Camilla, “Between meaning culture and presence effects: contemporary biomedical objects as challenge to museums”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (in press, 2009).
Söderqvist, Thomas and Bencard, Adam, “Do things talk?”, in Trischler, H; Sichau, C and Pickert, S. (eds), The Exhibition as a Product and Generator of Knowledge, Berlin: Max Planck Institute for History of Science, 2010 (in press).
Söderqvist, Thomas, “The participatory museum and distributed curatorial expertise”, NTM: Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, Technik und Medizin, nr 1/2010 (in press)
Wahlberg, Ayo and Bauer, Susanne, “Introduction: categories of life, in Bauer, S. and Wahlberg, A. (eds.), Contested Categories. Life Sciences in Society. Aldershot: Ashgate 2009: 1-14.
Bülow, MH , Butler, U, Chura, L, Cool, A, Dresler, T , Holm, M-L , Johnson, J, Myers, NL, Rankin, S, Stjepanovic, D & Whiteley, L 2011 Becoming transdisciplinary? Three dialogues. . PLoS Biology: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001178. [Online] Olsén, J-E 2010, ‘ Näringsfysiologi: kroppens ekonomi ‘. K Johannisson, R Qvarsell & I Nilsson (red), i: Medicinen blir till vetenskap: Karolinska Institutet under två århundraden. Karolinska Academic Press, s. 200-237.
Olsén, J-E 2010, ‘ Kroppen som blev kvar: Medicinsk visualisering hos Joan Didion, Anders Paulrud och William Kentridge ‘. T Gustafsson Chorell & M Bondestam (red), i: In på bara huden: Medicinhistoriska studier tillägnade Karin Johannisson. Bokförlaget Nya Doxa, Nora, s. 229-242.
Bauer, S & Olsén, J-E 2009, ‘ Observing the others, watching over oneself: themes of medical surveillance in post-panoptic society ‘ Surveillance and Society , vol 6, nr. 2, s. 116-127.
Olsén, J-E 2011, ‘ The body voyage as visual representation and art performance ‘ Nuncius , vol 26, nr. 1, s. 222-241.
Olsén, J-E 2010, ‘ Meet your inside: endoscopic visualizations in contemporary culture ‘ Academic Quarter , vol 1, s. 22-31.
Söderqvist, T 2011, ‘ The Seven Sisters: Subgenres of Bioi of Contemporary Life Scientists ‘ Journal of the History of Biology , vol 44, nr. 4, s. 633-650.
Söderqvist, T & Arnold, K 2011, ‘ Medical instruments in museums: Immediate impressions and historical meanings ‘ Isis , vol 102, nr. 4, s. 718-729.
Söderqvist, T 2010, ‘ The participatory museum and distributed curatorial expertise ‘ NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin , vol 18, nr. 1, s. 69-78.
Kragh, JV 2011, ‘ Narkomaniens glemte fortid: historien om stofmisbrug i Danmark 1870-1955 ‘ STOF – Tidsskrift for Stofmisbrugsområdet , nr. 17, s. 4-8.
Kragh, JV 2011, ‘ Et snit i blinde ‘ Psykologisk Set , vol 27, nr. 82, s. 25-32.
Kragh, JV 2010, ‘ Shock Therapy in Danish Psychiatry ‘ Medical History , vol 54, nr. 3, s. 341-364.
Kragh, JV 2010, ‘ Morphine Habitués. Addict Doctors and Drug Abuse in Denmark ‘ Fortid , nr. 7, s. 30-36.
Kragh, JV 2010, ‘ Krogede skæbner – kriminalitet og hvide snit ‘ Handicaphistorisk Tidsskrift , nr. 23, s. 59-76.
Kragh, JV 2010, ‘ Malaria fever therapy and general paralysis of the insane in Denmark ‘ History of Psychiatry , vol 21, nr. 4, s. 471-486.
Vaczy, JK 2009, ‘ Psykiatriens samtidshistorie ‘ BestPractice , vol 2, nr. 4, s. 5-6.
Kragh, JV 2009, ‘ The Origins of Electroconvulsive Therapy in Denmark ‘ Journal of ECT , vol 25, nr. 4, s. 270-273.
Kragh, JV 2009, ‘ Psykiatri, historie og kildekritik ‘ Bibliotek for læger , vol 201, s. 291-300.
Vaczy, JK 2008, ‘ Den værste fjende vi have at kæmpe imod: Malariabehandling og dementia paralytica i Danmark ‘ Bibliotek for læger , vol 200, nr. 2, s. 156-178.
Vaczy, JK 2008, ‘ Mellem religion og videnskab: Spiritismen i 1800- og 1900-tallet ‘ Scandia , vol 68, nr. 1, s. 53-77.
Vaczy, JK 2007, ‘ Sidste udvej? Træk af psykokirurgiens historie ‘ Medicinhistorisk Årbog , vol 35, s. 9-36.
Vaczy, JK 2007, ‘ Kulturkamp i 1920’erne. ‘ Slagmark , vol 50, s. 82-95.
Vaczy, JK 2007, ‘ Danish Psychiatry during the Nazi Occupation ‘ International Journal of Mental Health , vol 35, nr. 4, s. 107-117.
Vaczy, JK 2007, ‘ Medicin på museum ‘ Laegemagasinet , vol 21, nr. 2, s. 52-57.
Vaczy, JK 2005, ‘ Elektrochok, psykiatri og historie ‘ Ugeskrift for læger , vol 167, nr. 50, s. 4750-4752.
Kragh, JV 2005, ‘ Psykiatriske chokbehandlinger ‘ Magasinet Humaniora, Forskningsrådet for kultur og kommunikation , vol 4, s. 4-7.
Kragh, JV 2012, ‘ Exhibiting Madness in Museums. Remembering psychiatry through collections and display ‘ Social History of Medicine , vol advance acess.
Kragh, JV 2012, ‘ Poppy’s milk so bitter, so sweet ‘ Times Higher Education , s. 50.
Vaczy, JK 2008, ‘ Det forrykte menneske ‘ Historisk Tidsskrift , vol 108, nr. 1, s. 264-270.
Vaczy, JK 2007, ‘ Ny og gammel psykiatrihistorie ‘ Psyke & Logos , vol 28, nr. 1, s. 625-627.
Kragh, JV 2010, Det hvide snit. Psykiatri og psykokirurgi i Dnamark 1922-1983.Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
Vaczy, JK 2005, Kampen om livsanskuelse . 1. udg, Syddansk Universitetsforlag, Odense.
Vaczy, JK 2008, Psykiatriens historie i Danmark . 1. udg, Hans Reitzel, København.
Kragh, JV 2011, ‘ Det psykiatriske lægetilsyn på Godhavn ‘. M Rytter (red.), i: Godhavnsrapporten: En undersøgelse af klager over overgreb og medicinske forsøg på drenge- og skolehjemmet Godhavn samt 18 andre børnehjem i perioden 1945-1976. 1 udg, Syddansk Universitetsforlag, Odense, s. 125-178.
Kragh, JV 2010, ‘ Psykiatriens historie ‘. B Møhl & E Simonsen (red), i: Grundbog i psykiatri. 1 udg, Hans Reitzel, København, s. 813-830.
Vaczy, JK 2008, ‘ Feberdrømme: Malariabehandling og andre psykiatriske terapier 1922-1937 ‘. i: Psykiatriens historie i Danmark. 1. udg, Hans Reitzel, København: Hans Retizels Foralg, s. 175-197.
Vaczy, JK 2008, ‘ Det er som et mirakel!: Chokbehandling med insulin og cardiazol, 1937-1954 ‘. i: Psykiatriens historie i Danmark. 1. udg, Hans Reitzel, København: Hans Reitzels Foralg, s. 198-221.
Vaczy, JK 2008, ‘ indledning ‘. i: Psykiatriens historie i Danmark. 1. udg, Hans Reitzel, s. 11-18.
Hansen, SE 2009, ‘ Did Philippe Pinel frame the concept of disease rheumatoid arthritis in the year 1800? ‘ Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology , s. 488-491.
Hansen, SE 2009, ‘ Læge og patienter i Carlo Goldonis komedier og selvbiografi ‘ Bibliotek for læger , s. 413-431.
Hansen, SE 2009, ‘ Spedalskhed, slanger og andet kryb ‘ Carsten Niebuhr Biblioteket , s. 11-17.
Hansen, SE 2008, ‘ Udviklingen af binyrebarkens hormoner til lægemidler. Samspillet mellem klinik, akademisk forskning, lægemiddelindustri og offentlighedens forventninger.: – ‘ Dansk Medicinhistorisk Aarbog , vol -, nr. -, s. 109-132.
Hansen, SE 2008, ‘ Authors’ reply: Hansen SE and Wallenquist A. Rheumatoid arthritis, Poncet’s disease, or spondyloarthropathy ‘ Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology , vol 37, nr. 4, s. 319.

Kære Thomas Söderqvist

 

Vi håber du har haft et par udbytterige og hyggelige dage på Chefnetværksmødet i Fredericia.

 

Vi vil høre om du vil bruge 2 minutter på at svare på nogle enkelte spørgsmål om din oplevelse af Chefnetværksmødet. Linket til undersøgelsen finder du nedenfor.

 

Her er et link til undersøgelsen:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=Xd5kxCyurEk4_2fOaz9JfywA_3d_3d

 

Dette link er kædet unikt sammen med undersøgelsen og din email-adresse. Du bedes undlade at videresende denne besked.

 

Tak for din deltagelse og på gensyn!

 

Med venlig hilsen

Organisationen Danske Museer

Det var ikke særligt smart at lade den eneste kritiker af branding og oplevelseøkonomi optræde som pauseclown på slap line om aftenen — og lade de ureflekterede fortalere for en markedsorienteret tilgang til museer brede ud sig i programmet mandag-tirsdag. Jeg havde forventet et mere balanceret program. Nu blev det desværre to dage med ukritisk propaganda for Kulturministeriets syn på marketing, bradning og oplevelseøkonomi.

I’ve been reading some of the reception to Toby Miller’s recent Blow Up the Humanities. In summary, Miller suggests that the today humanities (at least in the US, but in principle everywhere) is divided into two kinds.

Humanities One is the good old traditional humanities: history and philosophy, literary and art history, the classics, etc. as we know them from good old humanities faculties around the world. Professors discussing Shakespeare, Hegel, and Kierkegaard with students for personal enjoyment and edification.

Humanities One are deep and probing but hardly useful on the current job market. Maybe that’s reason why student enrolment has diminished significantly over the lat decades.

Humanities Two on the other hand is all those new kinds of ‘humanities’ — cultural studies, media studies, material and visual culture, film studies, queer studies, communication, video game research, etc. and humanities courses in other programmes, like business — that draw lots of student, but are pretty shallow and primarily focused on providing skills for the private job market.

In a US context, Miller suggests, the division between Humanities One and Humanities Two mirrors the economic and cultural class division between private universities and state schools, which focus mainly on job prospects. If he had chosen Denmark as his case, he would probably have pointed to the difference between the Faculty of Humanities at the venerable University of Copenhagen and the short, flexible and market-oriented humanities programmes at the suburbian Roskilde University or the courses at the Copenhagen Business School.

The point is not that the one is better than the other, but that neither is what is needed today. Miller wants to blow up the division between them. In order to survive and succeed in producing a concerned citizenry, Miller wants restructure the humanities into a hybrid form: we need both the methodological depth of the old humanities, and the political and cultural urgency of the new ones.

 

In the age of Facebook and Twitter it’s easy to forget that less than a decade ago, the hottest in social media was blogs (a.k.a. weblogs).

This blog started back in early 2005. It was initiated to serve as a combined peer-to-peer and public communication platform for a research and curatorial project titled ‘Danish Biomedicine 1955-2005’ I had just started here at Medical Museion.

The blog was named ‘Biomedicine on Display’ and soon after the project changed name to follow the blog. After some two thousand posts it was merged, in October 2011, with Medical Museion’s revamped web site (www.museion.ku.dk) to form a combined blog/web-site on a WordPress platform.

And recently, we published blog post #2500 (this post is #2013).

There are still lots of skeptical attitudes towards social media among historians and curators of science, technology and medicine. They mainly contain superficial personal conversations and gossip. They may perhaps be useful for public dissemination and institutional branding, but not for serious intellectual exchange. And most importantly, being on social media takes time away from what really matters: research, curatorship, publication, and exhibition making.

These are some of the most common prejudices. However, if you have been immersed in social media for some years, as I have, such opinions are not quite representing what these media can do. In my opinion, it is increasingly difficult to imagine how historians and curators of science, technology and medicine can manage without them.

I started blogging in late 2004 and have produced some 1500 blog posts over the last nine years, on a wide array of themes relating to the representation of contemporary biomedicine in museums (Biomedicine on Display blog and Medical Museion blog).

Since 2010 I have also used Twitter and posted some 4600 tweets under the handle @Museionist, primarily about the historical, philosophical, social (and biographical) aspects of medical science and technology, and about STEM museum exhibitions, collections, and acquisitioning.

Many of these blog posts and tweets have been written in response to postings from other historians/curators and professionals from other relevant fields, and over the years, I have made the same experience as a growing number of people in our field, namely that  it is a mistake to think of social media as superficial branding, dissemination or public engagement channels only.

They can of course be used for these purposes. But a sustained presence on social media is, in my experience, first and foremost a very rewarding way of intensifying and widening one’s creative social space, opening up for discussions with a wide range of interlocutors, both inside and outside of one’s narrow professional field.

To illustrate how social media can used for enhancing creative interaction in our field, I will relay my last Twitter exchange with a group of historians of science/medicine and museum curators, on last Saturday.

When I browsed my Twitter stream in the late afternoon (I use to take a quick look three times a day: morning, late afternoon and late evening), I stumbled on this short one by British political cartoonist Adrian Teal (@adeteal), a industrious twitterer with more than 43.000 tweets behind him:

I didn’t know about, even less follow, Adrian Teal, but historian of medicine Jaipreet Virdi — a PhD candidate at the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology in Toronto whom I follow (@jaivirdi) — apparently did, because it was she who retweeted it.

Yet, her retweet would probably have passed under my radar if it hadn’t been for the fact that I’m currently quite interested in synaesthetics of museum objects and exhibition museum environments. (PhD student Anette Stenslund, @astenslund, here at Medical Museion works on the phenomenology of smell, particularly how hospital smellscapes can be transferred to / reproduced in museum spaces, and we are also discussing the possibility of an art-science installation on hospital smell.) So Jaipreet’s retweet of Teal’s musing triggered my critical acumen:

Jaipreet retweeted this to her 824 followers (thanks!) and then replied:

The physiology of smell is something I’ve read up in order to be able to supervise Anette, so I rapidly sent off a tweet about the use of gas chromatography and mass spectroscopy (not mass spectrography, as I wrote in haste) for recording smell:

which Jaipreet immediately retweeted (thanks again!), thus further enhancing my reputation as a sometime chemist — which encouraged me to send off yet another tweet about an alleged new Japanese method for smell recording (which I found in the meantime by googling ‘smell recording’):

followed by third tweet, in which I took issue with the vision-centric assumptions behind Adrian Teal’s original, i.e., why does he assume we would use photography instead of odorography?:

A few minutes later another twitterer and historian of science/medicine chimed in. Nathaniel Comfort of the Johns Hopkins’ Institute for the History of Medicine (@nccomfort) told us he had recently visited a new exhibit at the trendy Parisian experimental art and design center Le Laboratoire:

Being a long-time fan (see here) of  Le Laboratoire’s founder and director David Edwards, a Harvard professor in bimedical engineering with an interest in aerosols, molecular gastronomy, and other smell-generating stuff (we’re working together in the Studiolab science-art consortium), I quickly replied (still with Jaipreet and Adrian in the loop, of course):

As a good historian of science/medicine, Nathanael was a bit skeptic, however:

After a quick glance at the Ophone website, I had to admit Nathaniel skepticism was sound: David Edwards tells us the OPHONE™ “allows you to send olfactory messages instantaneously around the world.” (I would probably call that a teleodoron rather than ophone, but that’s a linguistic detail). If it works, if only with coffee flavours, it would indeed be revolutionary.

In the meantime, our conversation had been put on track by a real museum curator, David Pantalony (@SciTechCurator), who didn’t let himself be carried away by any futuristic scenarios:

A curator of physical sciences and medicine at the Canada Science and Technology Museum in Ottawa, David has 701 followers on Twitter and has produced more than 2400 tweets over the last years covering a wide range of topics relating to collection and exhibition curating. (A retweet by David means you reach some 500 curators in the sci and tech museum world!)

David apparently also thought an odorograph of smell would be more interesting than a photographic image, but qualified the discussion by making an analogy between audography and photography:

And Jaipreet seemed to agree that I had been to harsh on Adrian:

Anyway — there’s where we ended a few minutes after eight in the evening.  And Jaipreet summed up:

And I got the idea to use this Saturday evening chat as an example of how Twitter can be used to enhance the interactions between researchers and curators.

I’m not suggesting that this short exchange of tweets is particularly unique or mindbreaking. We didn’t go deep into the subject and we stopped after short number of turns. But it is typical of how social media can be used for professional purposes. In fact, over the last couple of years, I have had several conversations of this kind each month with a wide range of Twitter users, both researchers and curators and other kinds of professionals — some shorter, some longer. Discussions with Rebekah Higgitt (@beckyfh) sometimes extend over 15-25 turns with up to a handfull of interlocutors.

But even if the chat relayed above is pretty mundane, it illustrates some of the experiences a growing number of users of social media for academic and curatorial purposes have made:

• Social media allow for instant discussion: Within a few minutes Jaipreet, Nathaniel, David and I were engaged in a conversation about a neglected topic (the representation of smell) in the history of STM and STM museums.
• Social media increase the chances of contacts between researchers and curators considerably: The four of us have never met before, and chances are low we would have had this discussion in a coffee break between conference sessions.
• You don’t need to travel to meet: You can discuss at length with many people without any travel costs and minimal carbon footprint.
• It’s informal: You can have a beer or take a bath while discussing serious matters.
• Twitter breaks down hierarchies: It doesn’t matter who’s a senior professor and who’s a PhD candidate –the best argument creates responses, generates discussion, and increases the number of followers. It also makes turn-taking easier, and breaks down the all too common male domination in seminar discussions.
• Social media nivellate cultural and linguistic barriers: It doesn’t matter if you speak with a strong accent or master the intricacies of English grammar.
• Twitter isn’t built for bullshit: The 140 character limit forces you to sharpen and focus your argument.

I don’t suggest Twitter and other social media are substitutes for conference presentations or academic publishing. But they are a most useful complement to these traditional channels for intellectual exchange. That’s the reason why I think Twitter combined with other social media is a best tool we have these days for extending the traditional aims of  science, technology and medical museums.

—

Thomas Söderqvist, Ph.D., is Professor of History of Medicine and Director of Medical Museion at University of Copenhagen. At ICHSTM he is co-authoring the paper “Understanding social media in STEM museums: the lessons from establishing a bio-hacking laboratory” presented by Karin Tybjerg as part of session S002-C. Using the Web and social media to extend the traditional aims of museums on Tuesday 23 July.

Follow Thomas on Medical Museion’s blog, on Twitter (@Museionist) or on Facebook and please leave any questions or comments for him below.

Hvad foregår der i Psykiatrirummet?
Hvordan behandler vi mennesker med en anden erfaringsverden end normalen?
Hvordan skal et museum behandle en så vanskelig historie som psykiatriens?
Psykiatriens historie siden 1930 er voldsomt underrepræsenteret på museer i Danmark, hvilket betyder, at de udviklinger, der fører frem til dagens psykiatri, endnu ikke er genstand for udstillingsvirksomhed. De danske museer, der beskæftiger sig med psykiatrihistorie, er næsten alle anstaltsmuseer, dvs. museer i forhenværende
psykiatriske institutioner. Anstaltsmuseerne har af den grund ofte særligt fokus på deres egen historie. Det er imidlertid netop perioden fra 30’erne og til i dag, at psykiatrien udvikler sig fra at være et randfænomen til et alment samfundsanliggende: Hver anden familie i Danmark er i dag i berøring med det psykiatriske system.

I anden halvdel af det 20. århundrede undergik psykiatrien en gennemgribende forvandling, også kaldet af-institutionaliseringen, hvor de store anstalter fra 1700-1800-tallet lukkede til fordel for en ny og mere diffus institutionel infrastruktur. De sidste 70 år har været kendetegnet ved en række markante nybrud som psykofarmakologi, neurokirurgi og børnepsykiatri, en evigt forandrende diagnosekultur og en voldsom vækst i diagnoser. Psykiske lidelser er aldrig udelukkende kun medicinske eller socialt bestemte – de er altid både-og. Deres årsager er mangfoldige og endnu ikke kendt til fulde, hvilket – i samspil med psykiatriens voksende omfang og dens forkætrede historie – bevirker, at psykiatrien er en af de mest kontroversielle medicinske specialer overhovedet.

Siden marts 2013 har Medicinsk Museion haft Psykiatrirummet (link til beskrivelse), et arbejdsrum opført som en åben samling og altså ikke en normal udstilling. Desuden har bygningerne, hvor Medicinsk Museion holder til, aldrig haft nogen psykiatrisk brug og adskiller sig således fra anstaltsmuseerne. Arbejdsrummet består af en åben samling af Museions psykiatrihistoriske genstande, en udforskningsdel og en indsamlingsdel.

Indsamlingsdelen indhenter genstande fra psykiatriens historie fra 1930 og frem. Idet psykiatriens nyere historie er så underbelyst og anstaltsmuseer så udbredte, forsøger vi med Psykiatrirummet at indsamle ikke kun genstande, men også ideer og perspektiver, der kan styrke den mentale del af medicinhistorien på Medicinsk Museion. Formålet med et arbejdsrum er at kunne blive klar over, hvilke områder af psykiatriens historie, Museion i fremtiden kan og bør fokusere på. Den psykiatriske forskning og i endnu højere grad det psykiatriske system arbejder med flere tilgange på samme tid – fra kemi og genetik til psykologi, kultur og sociologi. Der findes derfor ikke én formaliseret sygdomsforståelse til at vejlede praksis, undervisning og forskning.

Psykiatriens materialitet: Aura og abstraktion
Museions psykiatrihistoriske samling er ganske begrænset i sit omfang, og det er da også Museet på Psykiatrisk Center Sct. Hans, der har til opgave at indsamle hovedstadsregionens psykiatrihistoriske kulturarv. Trods det begrænsede omfang i antal, placerer Museions genstande sig i et ganske omfattende tidsrum, nemlig fra 1700-tallet til i dag. Psykiatriens historie kan, sat på spidsen, siges at udvikle sig fra opbevaring til behandling, fra dårekiste til lykkepille.
I Psykiatrirummet findes der både store trægenstande som en dårekistedør, en krampeseng og en tvangsstol, der med deres patina og placering i historien, spiller på de forestillinger om galeanstalter, der er opbygget gennem bl.a. litteratur og film. Disse genstande trækker på den store fascinationskraft, psykiatrien har, idet den er i berøring med tilstande, der er gådefulde, ekstreme og mørke. En umiddelbart anonym genstand som en luffe, får en helt anden aura, når museumsgæsten kan læse, at det er en tvangsluffe til fastspænding og dermed en del af tvangens lange historie i psykiatrien. Faren ved disse genstandes tiltrækningskraft er, at de kan kan komme til at fastholde museumsgæsten i en illusion om en statisk og delvist romantiseret fortid. En måde at undgå denne lukkethed på er naturligvis at inddrage den nyere tids historie.

‘Er psykiatri bare hjernekemi?’, er et hyppigt stillet spørgsmål, og psykiatri identificeres da også i dag generelt med den medicinske terapiform og dermed indirekte med hjernens kemi. Hvordan udstiller man psykofarmakologi og det abstrakte i form af information og det mikroskopiske? Den museale udfordring i forbindelse med psykiatriens nyere historie er i det store hele også delt af medicinens nyere historie, nemlig den, at genstandene bliver så små, at de enten ikke er synlige eller ikke besidder den aurakvalitet, som kendetegner en massiv tvangsstol i træ fra 1800-tallet med latrineskuffe og rustne bæltespænder. Antidepressiva og antipsykotika er i egenskab af at være masseproduceret ikke nemme at udstille, fordi de hverken er unikke eller fysisk adskiller sig fra andre piller.

Indsamlingen i Psykiatrirummet har det sidste år drejet sig om børnepsykiatri, ny
diagnostik og psykofarmakologi – områder, der alle falder indenfor de sidste 70 års
historie og altså hører til den underrepræsenterede del af psykiatrihistorien på danske museer. Psykiatrien er som bekendt en fortolkningskunst, hvor ord indtager den centrale plads. Patientjournaler er derfor uhyre interessante, fordi de er et indblik i, hvordan diagnosticering fungerer i praksis, samt et vidnesbyrd om de sociale og kulturelle forestillinger, der har præget den psykiatriske praksis.

Psykiatrien byder desuden på en meget stærk visuel kultur i form af fotografier, der har spillet en afgørende diagnostisk rolle, og patientkunst, der snart i et århundrede har været den mest repræsenterede udtryksform fra patienternes perspektiv.

Kampen om repræsentation
Psykiatriens historie har altovervejende været varetaget af anstaltsmuseet. Siden
af-institutionaliseringen i 1970’erne har psykiatrien bredt sig til distriktpsykiatri,
bosteder, hospitaler, selvhjælpsgrupper, fængsler, ambulant behandling og psykiatrisk
akutberedskab m.fl.. Psykiatriens historie indeholder megen fortvivlelse, fejlagtige
terapier og en stadigt genkommende eufori ved nye behandlingsmetoder. At være
kritisk som museum indebærer dels at undgå den nye forsknings jubeloptimisme, dels
antipsykiatriens dæmonisering af psykiatrien. Det ændrer imidlertid ikke på, at
psykiatrihistorien, sådan som den er repræsenteret i bogform og på museer, frem for alt er psykiaternes historie om psykiatrien. Psykiatriske samlinger blev grundlagt af
psykiatere eller sygeplejersker, der ikke havde patienternes perspektiv som
overvejende interesse. Det er altså observatørernes og ikke de observeredes historie, vi har fået overleveret.

Patienten er som regel fraværende eller findes kun i psykiaterens fremstilling. Patienternes stemme er et mærkbart fravær i psykiatriens historie og den udstillingsvirksomhed, der har været fremtrædende indtil nu, også i Danmark. Heri
består en omfattende, men frugtbar opgave for psykiatrihistoriske museer. Det har i høj grad været patientkunsten (art brut), der har udgjort og udgør genstandene fra patientens perspektiv (se fx Museum Ovartaci, Risskov). Patientkunst har været en etableret genre fra og med grundlæggelsen af Prinzhorn-samlingen i 1920’erne. Patientkunstens store betydning og gode vilkår skyldes utvivlsomt den kulturelle forestilling om forbindelsen mellem galskab og kunst, der har eksisteret i Vesten i årtusinder. De andre aspekter af patientverdenen er derimod ubeskrevne: Oplevelsen af at være på anstalt, forholdet til diagnosen, patientrollen, modstand, forholdet til andre patienter, til de ansatte, til overlægen, til behandlingen – disse aspekter hører alle til psykiatriens historie.

Psykiatrien er en af de vigtigste åsteder, når det gælder definitionskampen om hvilken
opførsel, der kan kaldes afvigende og dermed eventuelt sygelig. Psykiatrisk diagnosticering er en fortolkning, der støtter sig på mange vidensfelter. Der findes endnu ikke en eneste test eller biomarkør, der kan indikere en psykisk lidelse. Den åbenlyse fortolkning, som ingenlunde er uvidenskabelig bare fordi den er fortolkning, gøder imidlertid jorden for stadigt genkommende kontroverser om psykiatriens videnskabelighed, idet psykiatrien ikke kan hvile i den samme type autoritet, som den medicinen får gennem test og scanninger. En psykiatrihistorisk udstilling bør også søge efter en form, der kan indeholde og arbejde med de kontroverser, der udspiller sig i psykiatrien.

Fremtider: Pluralismens problem og et nyt syn på sindet
Hvordan gøres et menneskes psykiske tilstand til videnskab? Det moderne medicinhistoriske museum er – ud over at varetage medicinens materielle kulturarv –
indstillet på at kunne udstille, hvordan videnskab skabes. I stedet for at fremstille
videnskab som en færdigvare, forsøger museet at udstille de processer og tanker, der
fører til operativ videnskab. Der ligger adskillige eksperimentelle blindgyder, ideer om psykiske mekanismer, dyreforsøg, videnskabelige kampe m.m. bag fx en lykkepille.

Psykiatrien er per definition interdisciplinær og pluralistisk både som praksis og som
videnskab. Dertil kommer terapiformernes forskellige virkninger: antipsykotisk medicin hjælper nogle, men ikke andre; elektrochok hjælper nogle depressive, men ikke andre; en diagnose virker som en forløsning for nogle, hvor den kan føles som et bur for andre. Den store fare i omgangen med psykiatri er at forenkle og generalisere denne pluralisme. Pluralismen er en stor udfordring, når psykiatrien skal på museum, for hvordan udstiller man denne pluralisme? Medmindre man vælger et uhyre afgrænset aspekt af psykiatrien, er det næsten umuligt at repræsentere den mangfoldighed.

Psykiatrirummet er som nævnt et arbejdsrum, der skal kortlægge muligheder for
psykiatrien på Medicinsk Museion. Når det gælder den nyere tids psykiatriske historie, er børnepsykiatri, retspsykiatri, mentalhygiejne i Skandinavien, trauma og krig og af-institutionaliseringen fortsat ubrugte udstillingsemner i Danmark.

Psykiatrirummets anden dimension drejer sig om, hvor psykiatrien er på vej hen. I hvilke retninger peger forskningen? Hvordan forstår vi som kultur psykiske lidelser og hvilke forestillinger har vi om sindet i forhold til kroppen? Psykiatrien har haft hjernen som sit entydige psykiske fokus, men hvad med resten af kroppen – giver det mening at identificere sindet med hjernen? Nyere forskning i stofskifte og mikrobiomet, inklusive hjerne-tarm-aksen, tyder på, at en integrering af hele kroppen er nødvendig for bedre at kunne forstå sindet og psykiske lidelser.

Af andre samtidige og fremtidige problemstillinger i psykiatrien, som kan bearbejdes i udstillingsform, er forebyggelsens rolle i psykiatrien, psykiatriens videnskabelige
grænser og psykopatologiske dyremodeller. Forskningsperspektiver er afgørende, men kan være svære at håndtere i en udstillingssammenhæng. Er det museet eller den besøgende, der fordøjer viden? Er det meningen, at man som besøgende skal læse en hel artikel? Som museumsgæst er et besøg i Psykiatrirummet noget forvirrende, fordi det er et arbejdsrum og således ikke struktureret efter én fortælling, én ide eller ét perspektiv. Ulempen ved en sådan åbenhed er, at det stiller store krav til museumsgæsten – både i forhold til at navigere i rummet og i usikkerheden om, hvad der forventes af en gæst i et arbejdsrum. Hvem skal arbejde? Hvad arbejdes der med? Hvad arbejdes der henimod? Hvis Psykiatrirummet skal kunne udnytte den store interesse i psykiatri, vil det derfor være oplagt med nogle tydeligt definerede perspektiver, problemer eller emner, hvor museet på forhånd har reflekteret over disse spørgsmål, så gæsten kan engagere sig. Det er vigtigt, at kurateringen også er en bearbejdning af forskning.

Et generelt problem for medicinhistoriske museer med interesse for den nyere tids
historie, er at de mange aktører (forskere, hospitaler, ingeniører osv.) ikke forstår deres teknologier, praksisser og instrumenter som kulturarv. Psykiatrien har det samme problem, særligt angående arkivalier, hvor patientjournaler er en afgørende kilde til fortidens praksis. Der er desværre alt for mange eksempler på hospitalskældre med journaler, som får lov at rådne, bliver glemt eller pludselig smides ud på grund af
nedrivning eller ombygning. Der findes uheldigvis også alt for mange eksempler på
privatarkiver og privatsamlinger, der er blevet destrueret. Trods disse forhold er der
rige muligheder for at udfolde psykiatriens historie, idet Danmark har nogle af de bedste registre i verden. Den næste psykiatri-relaterede udstilling på Medicinsk Museion vil sandsynligvis være om hjerne-tarm-aksen. Indtil da vil Psykiatrirummet fortsætte med at udforske psykiatrien i dens pluralisme og forsøge sig med mere definerede eksperimenter i, hvad og hvordan sindet og psykiske lidelser skal udstilles.

One of the things I have been working on here at Medical Museion quite a lot has been to engage external artists and designers to come and work with our team of researchers/curators. Primarily with exhibitions and installations, but also in events of different kinds (see a summary of some of these works here).

In hindsight – why did we get involved in these commissions, some of them being quite time-consuming and expensive? And more generally, why is art and science such a big thing these days?

I have already suggested some reasons why science museums might be interested in promoting the art-science interface. Here I will present another In a series of blogposts

I would like to spend my remaining few minutes on (9) an analysis of the stakeholder interests behind the art-science field.

The obvious stakeholders, of course, are, on the one hand, artists and art institutions, and on the other hand, scientists and science institutions.

So, (10) there’s growing number of artists and art institutions, galleries, art schools, etc., who are inspired by science, or use scientific stuff in their work. They mainly use science as a theme or a motif, or they use science materials, like human tissue, in the same way as traditional artists use oils and pigments. (11) Here is Oron Catt’s “Victimless Leather”. Most importantly, they view science as yet another means for transforming and renewing art practice. For them science is just another way of making art.

And vice versa, (12) there are scientists and institutions who view art as just another way of making the rest of us interested in their professional work. Scientists put ‘beautiful images’ of cells and crystals and geological structures etc. on the covers of scientific journals, and call it ‘art’. Research institutes display art-science-works on the premises as a kind of branding, (13) like here: Julian Voss-Andreae’s “Angel of the West”. And science communicators believe that art enhances the public engagement with science; often using art as a sweetener to swallow the pill of hard science. There are many different particular interests involved here, but what they have in common is that they see art as a way of promoting science.

I think, these are the two most obvious clusters of stakeholders. But there are also interests in the interface per se, and I will shortly mention two of them.

One is based on the idea that ‘creativity’ is a common denominator for art and science. (14) There is a widespread belief today in ‘innovation’ as a generative locomotive for competitive economies – a kind of deus ex machina for late capitalism if you want – which in turn is based on ‘creativity’. And the idea, in this context, is that both scientists and artists (and maybe novelists and film makers as well) are creative, and that their new ideas can be implemented in technical and social innovations – and thus help drive the economy forward.

This is the reasoning behind, for example, David Edwards’s art-science venue in Paris, La Laboratoire. So here’s (15) what David writes on his website:

“… idea development in culture, industry, education and society can be conceived as a kind of experimentation, where the catalyst for change, for movement – for innovation – is a fusion of those creative processes we conventionally think of as art and as science. This fused process, what I call ‘artscience,’ is the basis of a new kind of culture center we have opened in central Paris.
http://www.lelaboratoire.org/en/who-we-are.php

I think this a bold idea and there may even be some future money in it. But I must confess that this is not why I, personally, have engaged in the art-science interface. (And I should add that I haven’t been particularly motivated by furthering art, or furthering science, or furthering science communication either).

My basic motivation for engaging with the art-science interface is that I think it’s a most important ingredient in education. Not education in terms of career training or the acquisition of competences for the job market. But (16) education in terms of ‘Bildung’, as the Germans call it.

Bildung — to quote the most widespread source of Bildung these day (Wikipedia 🙂 — (17) is:

“a process wherein an individual’s spiritual and cultural sensibilities as well as life, personal and social skills are in process of continual expansion and growth”.

and

“Bildung is seen as a way to become more free due to higher self-reflection”

The idea here is that the more you develop your cultural sensibilities, and the more you reflect on the connections between them, the more you develop your ability to become a free and independent citizen. Which is a precondition for democracy.

The notion of Bildung as providing the basis for life-long self-education was the essence of the classical university. It was conceptualized by people like Wilhelm von Humboldt for the Berlin University in the mid-19th century, and it later became the foundation for most of the world’s leading universities for more than a century.

But Bildung isn’t anything that’s acknowledged by the governance regimes of today’s universities. As many observers have pointed out universities are rapidly being restructured into one-dimensional training institutions for a productive and efficient work-force. University politicians and administrators have largely abandoned the notion of Bildung.

I’m not advocating a nostalgic return to the classical humboldtian university. But for democratic reasons, I strongly believe that the notion of Bildung has to be upheld – and its content created anew.

And what is more appropriate for Bildung in today’s world than a combination of art and science? Who would contest the claim that art and science are among the major features of culture today? And isn’t the case then, that the cultivation of artistic and scientific sensibilities – on their own and together — are indispensable for becoming a self-reflective world citizen?

Finally, where can such a kind of Bildung – both in general terms, and more specifically in terms of self-reflection on art and science – can take place these days?

We shouldn’t give up on trying to press the Bildung-component back into universities. But there are other ways as well. Maybe museums are better placed for life-long education? Maybe the internet, maybe the rapidly changing ecosystem of blogs, tweets, Instagram images and Facebook status updates will provide the 21st century platform for Bildung? Or maybe we should look for bottom-up social movements, like the biohacking movement?

I realize that the answer seems to be blowing in the wind. But one thing I’m pretty sure about – and that is that people will always strive to understand the world around them and their place in the world, and that reflection on science and art together will become a major constituent in that kind of understanding – independent on the current demise of the university as a Bildungs-institution. (18).

Featured image from http://deutschverstehen.blogspot.dk/search/label/Heraklit

Here are five examples of such art-science projects that I have been involved in over the last 7-8 years:

1) Danish sound artist Jacob Kirkegaard’s commissioned work Labyrinthitis, an artistic investigation of the workings of the inner ear.

When a sound wave reaches the ear it is transmitted via the eardrum and the auditory ossicles to an array of hair cells of the sensory epithelium in the inner ear that produce the signal to the auditory parts of the brain. As these hair cells vibrate they in turn send out a tiny sound wave, which can actually be measured with sophisticated technology.

Jacob’s ingenious idea was to record these secondary sounds from his own inner ear and use them to compose a piece of music. Labyrinthitis, as he titled it, was first performed in Medical Museion’s auditorium on the 2nd of September 2007, and won some critical acclaim, e.g., The Danish Arts Council elected CD as one of the three best and most remarkable releases of 2008. See the fine review (in Danish) here).

 

— .(5). Canadian artist and designer Martha Fleming’s Container Wall – conceptualizing the notion of ‘container’ in the biomedical sciences – both in living tissues and in laboratory practice

— (6). Cell biologist David Goodsell at the Scripps Research Institute who makes hyper-realistic renderings of cellular structures based on his close readings of cell biological research literature and scientific images.
— (7). My own Genomic Enlightenment using 670 gene chips from a (at the time unpublished) study of gene expression in thousands of patients with metabolic diseases
— (8). The UK-based artgroup Pharmacopoeia has made this larger-than-life dress Femme Vitale, made from 27.700 prescription pills used by a real patient with metabolic syndrome over ten years.

So these are some of the artscience works I’ve been involved in commissioning for Medical Musseion.

(featured image from http://one.arch.tamu.edu/news/2012/8/2/lafayette-sead-network)