The journal NTM: Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, Technik und Medizin is currently running a series of articles about university collections and museums. These articles raise a number of interesting issues, which are otherwise rarely brought up in discussions about the historiography of science, technology, and medicine.

In nr 4/2008, Anke te Heesen (Tübingen) pointed to the often forgotten fact that university collections are an integral part of many fields of university research and teaching; this active role of the collections in these primary functions of the university is therefore an important parameter to take into account when developing acquisition and exhibition agendas for university museums.

In the following issue (nr 1/2009), Christian Sichau (Deutsches Museum in Munich) warned against the rapidly deteriorating political, intellectual, and economic status of traditional curatorial work in collections; this is a serious long-term threat to museums because the current trend towards blockbuster exhibitions and event culture—even in science, technology, and medical museums—undermines the role of the museum as a space for the preservation of the heritage and the acquisition of new artefacts.

In the latest issue (nr 1/2010) Thomas Schnalke (Berliner Medizinhistorisches Museum), largely ignores the question of collections, artefact curating, and new acquisitions in favour of an inspiring discussion about the potentially great role of museum exhibitions in science communication, both internally in the university and externally for a larger general public.

All three authors have long-term experience from the science, technology, and medical museum world. Together, their contributions provide an excellent platform for future discussions about the role of collections in museums in general and in university museums in particular, and therefore I thought I would give my views on these interesting issues (my article will be published in nr 1/2010; a slightly different version of the manuscript is brought on this blog in a series of blogposts in the next two weeks).

I will I restrict myself to an important question brought up by Sichau—and which neither te Heesen nor Schnalke pays much attention to—viz, how science, technology, and medicine museums should handle the problem of new acquisitions. How should they manage the steadily growing output of scientific, technical, and medical artefacts, documents, and images from offices and research laboratories?

Should they at all try to catch up with the perpetual tsunami of potential collection items? Should they try to bring in almost everything, or should they restrict themselves to samples (and if so, what are the rules of the sampling game)? Should they have a global focus or should they concentrate on objects produced and/or used in the local university (and if so what does ‘locally produced’ and ‘locally used’ actually mean in a world with increasingly globalised knowledge and artefact production)? Or should museums let the event logic of their outreach staff determine what to collect, so that they bring in an electron microscope only if an exhibition on microscopy is in the pipeline—and refuse to accept it if the outreach people plan for an obesity show instead?

(to be continued, see here)

Measured by the number of incoming emails and RSS-feeds, the big news in the science museum world today is a critical article by Edward Rothstein (“The Thrill of Science, Tamed by Agendas”) in the Arts Special section of yesterday’s New York Times.

A century ago, Rothstein points out, museums were simply collections of objects: “And science museums were collections of objects related to scientific inquiry and natural exploration. Their collections grew out of the ‘wonder cabinets’ of gentlemen explorers, conglomerations of the marvelous.”

Rothstein loves the old collection-oriented museums (so do I, and so do my emailing and RSS-feeding friends and colleagues). One of his favourites is the partly dispersed collection of Henry Wellcome, which includes “moccasins owned by Florence Nightingale, Napoleon’s toothbrush, amputation saws, an array of prosthetic limbs, a Portuguese executioner’s mask, Etruscan votive offerings and obstetrical forceps”.

“You look at such collections”, writes Rothstein, “and sense an enormous exploratory enterprise. You end up with an enlarged understanding of the world’s variety and an equally enlarged sense of the human capacity to make sense of it”.

But over the last two generations, the scientific objects have largely been replaced by politics, educational aims and curatorial experimental ambitions: “the science museum has become a place where politics, history and sociology often crowd out physics and the hard sciences. There are museums that believe their mission is to inspire political action, and others that seek to inspire nascent scientists”. Museums have become agenda-driven.

Although I disagree with Rothstein’s lumping together of science museums and science centers (in my view these have very little in common), I believe he has a point. All of this museological experimentation may, says Rothstein, “be a sign of the science museum’s struggle to define itself”.

But defining itself to what identity? Rothstein is looking forward to some unforseeable “brilliant transformations of the science museum model” — hoping that “today’s rampant experimentation with exhibition styles might eventually yield a new model as yet unimagined”.

Not entirely unforeseeable though. Rothstein places some hope with exhibitions like those in Boston’s Museum of Science, for example a “remarkable 19th-century collection of finely wrought glass models of sea creatures” which becomes part of an exhibition about modeling “and its importance to the pursuit of play, fashion and science”.

In another BMoS-exhibition, “the museum’s animal specimens are joined with a mineral collection, vintage dioramas and other artifacts to explore the nature of collecting and categorizing”; a third example is the revamped 1961 exhibit “Mathematica” (created by Charles and Ray Eames); its “exploration of abstraction was inspiring to a young boy who saw it long ago; it remains a touchstone”.

All three exhibitions “explain important concepts about how science is done while displaying extraordinary objects and spurring new ways of seeing — all without pressing viewers into a particular program”.

I fully understand Rothstein’s wish to get the thrill of science back in the museum (whether museum or science centre). He is waiting for Jesus the Curator to come to the Museum Temple Place and throw all the paraphernalia and extravaganzas out, and restore the simple virtues of a science museum: science, objects and principles.

Well, to me that sounds like an agenda — another one than the prevailing populist agenda indeed, but it is still an agenda. I don’t think you can avoid agendas by letting the science and the objects somehow speak for themselves. The question is rather what kind of agenda you want.

Ilke Kocamaz, a PhD candidate at the University of Exeter, has an interesting point on the Material World blog today.

Taking Malraux’s notion of the ‘museum without walls’ as her a point of departure, Kocamaz reminds us that the museum as a concept is not dependent on any particular place or time — and then relates this to the process of rebuilding, refurbishment and rebranding that museums undergo now and then.

Her point is that such refurbishment processes are both a time of crisis and an opportunity for museums, because they have to somehow continue their activities without losing their customers. She gives the example of the Royal Albert Memorial Museum in Exeter (UK):

While being shut down, the museum takes its collections to many different interest groups and keeps its relationships up and running with them. The museum is becoming ever more immaterial, using the Internet and other technological sources and extending its boundaries to become a global player.

In other words, the museum is using the refurbishment process as an opportunity to find new ways of relating to the public, instead of being restricted to the usual local audience.

So what conclusion can we draw from the RAMM example? What about refurbishment perpetual beta?

Nanowerk reports that researchers at the Micro and Nanosystems Department, Instituto de Microelectrónica de Barcelona have recently demonstrated that it is possible to produce and place small silicon chips inside living HeLa cells by means of different techniques, like lipofection, phagocytosis or microinjection. 90% of the cells remained alive and healthy for a week.

We’re talking about quite ordinary (but extraordinarily small) silicon chips that are made of a normal semiconductor material and produced by usual manufacturing methods. The chips can be used as intracellular sensors and the possibilites are endless — e.g., characterization, quantification and IRT monitoring of molecular processes at the single cell level.

This sounds like a promising route for molecular medicine. But it’s a potential nightmare for future medical museum curators. Good old steampunk medicine was about surgical instruments that operated on the level of visible organs. Now we’ve got a double problem: not only do we have to collect and preserve invisible cell-lines, but also take care of their invisible chips. 

Does this mean the end of medical museum collections as we know them? Has anybody got a good idea for how to collect, preserve and display these creatures?

By chance I just found the wonderful exchange below in the Minutes of Evidence of the House of Lords (i.e., the upper house of the British Parliament) Select Committee on Economic Affairs meeting of 14 February. It’s the record of the examination of witnesses on the state of public health research and its importance for the health of the population (don’t ask why I read this kind of stuff 🙂

The Lords have called Richard Peto, famous Oxford professor in medical statistics and epidemiology, to the stand. First Lord Skidelsky asks some questions about the epidemiological evidence behind the risks of smoking, and then Lord Vallance of Tummel (sic!) brings up the question of hospital acquired infections:

Sir Richard, I wonder if I may change the subject a little bit because you have already answered the question I was going to ask on smoking en passant. Could we move on to hospital acquired infections.

To which professor Peto answers:

I have been fairly useless on the previous questions and I am probably going to be even more useless on this.

Replies Lord Vallance of Tummel:

That is fine. Do not think that because you are being useless it is not helpful.

To which the Chairman adds:

You may take some comfort from the fact that with some people who are very assertive about what they believe we are not very convinced they are right either. We think you are more likely to be right if you are somebody who shows a little doubt about something.

Words of wisdom — stumbled upon in the minutes of a Select Committee of the House of Lords.

Just a reminder about the meeting in Copenhagen 16-18 September — on the challenge to museums posed by contemporary developments in biomedical science and medical technology.

How do museums today handle the material and visual heritage of contemporary medical and health science and technology? How do curators wield the increasing amount and kinds of more or less intangible and invisible scientific, medical and digital objects? Which intellectual, conceptual, and practical questions does this challenge give rise to?

We’re aiming for two intensive days with visually enhanced presentations, good discussions and excellent food in beautiful surroundings.
 
Read the full call here. Further information here. Send proposals for presentations, panels etc. to ths@sund.ku.dk, not later than Monday 29 March.

Program committee: Ken Arnold, Wellcome Collection, London; Robert Bud, Science Museum, London; Judy Chelnick, National Museum of American History, Washington, D.C.; Mieneke te Hennepe, Boerhaave Museum, Leiden; Thomas Soderqvist, Medical Museion, University of Copenhagen (chair).

Nina has a point — her favourite museums are idiosyncratic. There are lots of “perfectly nice, perfectly forgettable” museums, but those that stick in one’s memory are those with individuality, like the Museum of Jurassic Technology. They are often small, because they are not run by committees, and the staff is passionate about what they are doing.

Yet, as Nina points out, most small idiosyncratic museums strive to become bigger and more mainstream rather than remain small, quirky and passionate and cultivating their idiosyncracy. She gives four reasons for this:

Funders and potential donors tend to look for particular benchmarks of professionalism (appropriately), and few are comfortable funding the most risky or content-specific institutions.

As money gets tight, museums look for exhibits, program strategies, and revenue streams that are “proven” by other institutions’ successes, rather than charting their own potentially risky path.

Many museums no longer employ in-house exhibit developers, relying instead on a short list of contractors and consultants. Design firms’ projects often have a common look across different cities and institutions.

Small museums, which are most likely to cultivate local, distinctive voice and approaches, often have an inferiority complex. Rather than asserting their uniqueness, they try to emulate large museums.

Science centers are among the worst. They have, Ninas suggests, three additional reasons for homogeneity:

The audience cycles frequently as families “age out.” Institutions may feel less of a need to offer something unusual or distinctive if the audience will keep refreshing every few years.

The content is often seen as not being community-specific. Science is science, and grocery store exhibits are grocery store exhibits. Funders like the NSF have encouraged science centers in particular to share their techniques and evaluations, which is fabulous but also leads to rampant and sometimes unthinking imitation.

These museums have undergone the fastest growth in the industry in the past thirty years. There is a big business of selling exhibits, copies of exhibits, and exhibit recipe books, and many individuals who start new institutions rely almost entirely on these vehicles to fill their galleries.

I certainly share Nina’s love of idiosyncratic institutions — and I can certainly see the risk of becoming bigger and more established. Can we keep the passion even though we are slowly growing?

Like most museums, Medical Museion is a member of the International  Council of Museums (ICOM). The major benefit of membership is that you don’t have to pay entrance to other member museums (and sometimes are allowed to bypass the queue by getting in through the VIP entrance, which gives a kick of feeling important).

But except for this, one doesn’t really get much out of the hefty membership fee. ICOM, with its headquarters in the UNESCO building in Paris, is just another big transnational bureaucracy.

In the good old days of Western imperialism, ICOM promoted wholesome European and American values. Not so anymore. The 22nd General Conference will be held in Shanghai in November this year on the theme ‘Museums for Social Harmony’.

Took me some time to get my memory in order. In fact, last I heard the term ‘social harmony’ was in a Xinhua news report from the Sixth Plenum of the 16th Central Committee meeting of the Chinese Communist Party, held in Beijing in 2006.

Building social harmony, said a CPC spokesperson then, “is a major strategic move taken by the Party to build a fair and just society and attain sustainable social and economic development”. And now, four years later, this strategic move has already been adopted by ICOM.

As a corollary, ‘Museums for Social Harmony’, has also been chosen as the theme for this year’s International Museum Day on Tuesday 18 May.  

Actually, when you think about it, it’s not that surprising. I don’t believe this is a specific ICOM phenomenon. Transnational bureaucracies probably have quite a lot in common with CPC’s world view of a socially harmonic, authoritarian, market economy-based society.

Som jeg skrev for et par uger siden har Arken lige lavet en lille undersøgelse på temaet ‘Fremtidens museum’.

Museerne og den kultur, som de eksisterer i, har ændret sig markant de seneste 20 år. Bevægelsen fra mono- til multikultur, nye undervisningsformer, ændringer i medievaner og forbrugsmønstre samt demokratiseringstendenser, der bringer traditionelle hierarkier og autoriteter under pres, er blot nogle af de faktorer, der stiller nye krav til museerne. De ændrede vilkår kræver, at museerne handler proaktivt og opdaterer deres selvforståelse i forhold til den omgivende virkelighed. Hvordan udnytter vi bedst de nye og fascinerende muligheder, som fremtiden vil bringe – kulturelt, teknologisk og samfundsmæssigt?

Her er spørgsmålene — og mine korte svar (der var plads til meget mere, men jeg havde mest lyst til at skrive Twitteragtigt):

Spm 1: Hvad er museumsvæsenets vigtigste opgave i fremtiden?
Svar: At medvirke til en udvidet bevidsthed om vores fælles globale kulturarv.

Spm 2:  Hvad vil være den vigtigste udfordring inden for fremtidens museumsledelse, og hvordan bør museerne agere i forhold til denne udfordring?
Svar: At opfange den skjulte kreativitet som findes uden for de traditionelle museumskredse og mobilisere den til at forandre museerne fra nationale klenodieborge til at blive aktører i en global demokratisk kulturarvsforståelse

Spm 3: Hvad er den vigtigste udfordring inden for indsamling og bevaring i fremtiden, og hvordan bør museerne agere i forhold til denne udfordring?
Svar: At udvikle ’museum 2.0’-metoder og logistikker til ’distribueret kuratering’.

Spm 4: Hvordan ser du forskningens rolle på fremtidens museum, og hvad kan museerne gøre for at styrke deres forskning?
Svar: Museerne skal udvikle strategiske relationer med universitetsinstitutionerne, gerne inden for tilsyneladende ’ikke-museologiske’ forskningsområder.

Spm 5: Hvad er museumsinstitutionens største potentiale i forhold til publikum og formidling, og hvordan udnytter museerne bedst dette potentiale?
Svar: ’Publikum’ er en enestående ressource til at udvikle museernes kreativitet og ansvarsområde. ’Formidling’ må grundlæggende forstås som inddragelse af ’publikum’ i kulturarvsarbejdet.

Spm 6: Hvilke fremtidige udviklingsmuligheder ser du inden for kuratering af særudstillinger, og i hvilke retninger bør museerne nytænke deres udstillingsformater?
Svar: Alle udstillinger bør være særudstillinger – eller snarere, udstillingerne skal være i ’perpetual beta’, dvs. under konstant forandring, i dialog mellem de professionelle kuratorer og brugerne. Udstillingsformaterne behøver nytænkes radikalt. Hvad med alter-realistiske udstillinger?

Spm 7: Hvad er den vigtigste fremtidige udfordring i forhold til økonomi og administration, og hvordan bør museerne agere i forhold til denne udfordring?
Svar: Der vil altid mangle penge. Men den som laver noget interessant og vedkommende er ikke fattig.

We have a old and pretty dysfunctional website. Shall we rebuild it (using the university’s system) or not?

All other great museums have fancy, big websites with lots of rich media functionalities. They cost hundreds of hours and enormous sums of money to build and maintain. Are they worth it? Or are the days of big websites numbered?

Mitch Joel (TwistImage) believes so (March 6), and I think he has a good argument.  If you think about how people find and connect to brands, they don’t necessarily do so through Google or other search engines anymore: “In fact, more and more people are having their first brand interaction on their mobile device. There are many people who are also connecting to brands for the first time in spaces like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.”

This doesn’t necessarily mean that website is about to become extinct. But it means that institutional branding is much more than one, big and centralized website:  “it is more than likely that we’re going to see more and more brands create multiple spaces and platforms to ensure that they’re connecting with the right people in the right communities”. And even if institutions use microblogging and other platforms, they usually think about them as instruments to drive people back to their own, controlled, website: “The truth is that the more vibrant community for a brand may be happening more through a mobile app or online social network platform… or something else or something in addition to it”.

Worth some thought.