I’m thrilled by the fact that an historian of medicine (Richard Barnett of the Department of History and Philosophy of Science in Cambridge) will chair a panel debate on health care in the digital age (taking place in Cambridge, UK, on Thursday) — it sustains the tendency that historians of medicine are becoming more engaged in contemporary debates about the health care system; and almost always for the better.

Titled ‘Saved by SMS’, the panel debate is about a worldwide healthcare system in crisis and the future prospects of bringing health care practitioners and patients into the digital information age:

From tracking malaria drugs in the developing world by SMS, sharing information about disease outbreaks via social networking sites, to empowering patients and doctors to share diagnosis and treatment ideas, significant changes to the digital and social infrastructure of the global healthcare system could revolutionise the way we look after own health, and other peoples.

Bertalan Meskó (Science Roll) and others have been instrumental in putting medicine 2.0 on the agenda. Historians of medicine and medical museum could play a much more active role in these crucial discussions. The fact that Richard Barnett will chair the meeting on Thursday is a good sign — hopefully he will also infuse some historical perspective into the discussion.

The Thackray Museum in Leeds is hosting an interesting meeting organised by artist Paul Digby on Saturday 20 March. Titled ‘Hybrid’ it gathers a group of interesting thinkers and practicioners on the interface between art and science:

Siân Ede (Arts Director at the UK Branch of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and author of Strange and Charmed: Science and the Contemporary Visual Arts) will talk about ‘Light echoes in art and science’:

A light echo is a phenomenon observed in astronomy and is produced when a sudden burst of light is reflected off a source, arriving at the viewer some time after the initial flash. Investigative approaches in art and science have little in common but co-exist in the same human context and may unwittingly reflect each other’s thought processes and imagery. In this talk I will venture to explore how far images in contemporary art and science reflect each other’s aesthetic and epistemological currencies.

The philosopher Mary Midgley will speak about ‘Science and poetry’:

Science and Poetry are not rival concerns competing for our attention. They are complementary aspects of our lives. The same imaginative faculties forge both of them, providing the basic structures round which they grow. In every age, scientists need to have a suitable guiding vision, a vision which is adapted both to new data and to changes in the background culture. Some of the visions which are still thought of as central to modern science – e.g atomism and mechanism – were actually forged in the seventeenth century and have become in some ways, unsuitable for the thinking which has since developed. We need to attend to these visions and keep them up to date.

Then James Peto (Senior Curator at the Wellcome Collection) will talk about ‘The culture of medicine: exhibitions at the Wellcome Collection’:

Since the Wellcome Collection opened two years ago, its exhibitions have covered such diverse subjects as the relationship between medicine and warfare; what we understand – or imagine – is happening in our brains and bodies while we sleep; how artists and scientists have grappled with the question of human identity; the history of our understanding of the anatomical and symbolic role of the human heart; the relationship between mental illness and the visual arts in Freud’s Vienna. Showing examples from exhibitions which have been shaped by artists and scientists in equal measure, James Peto will discuss how the Wellcome Collection approaches science as part of culture, rather than as something separate.

And finally Mike Vanden Heuvel (author of Performing Drama/Dramatizing Performance: Alternative Theater and the Dramatic Text) will give talk on ‘To Infinity, and Beyond!’ Can Theatre Play with Science?’

Given the recent appearance of a number of well-received plays with scientific themes, characters, and metaphors, it is no surprise that critical discourse is just beginning to assess the quality and accomplishments of science plays. A leading spokesperson for one critical approach is Carl Djerassi, an award-winning chemist who, after retiring from academia, has published a number of plays on science themes (Oxygen; An Immaculate Misconception). As well, Djerassi has become a respected polemicist for adjudicating which plays belong to the category of what he terms “science-in-theatre.” In my paper I explore some ramifications of Djerassi’s assumptions, focusing on how they position theatre and performance as a mirror held up to the nature that a given science proposes. I argue that such expectations have led a good deal of playwrights to pursue a strategy of “veracity” in their presentation of scientific themes (using Frayn’s Copenhagen as a readily-recognizable example). In contrast to these assumptions, I present the work of less-known playwrights and theatre devisers (such as Luca Ronconi) whose strategy is rather one of what I term “variety” – “theatre-in-science,” to reverse Djerassi’s formulation. In their work, theatre and performance are recognized, and celebrated, for their ability to warp the mirror of scientific veracity and to awaken imaginative responses that still honor complex scientific ideas (such as Ronconi’s Infinities, created in collaboration with the cosmologist John Barrow). In my conclusion, I interrogate the consequences of what I consider a too-heavy investment of science-in-theatre at the expense of theatre-in-science, considering how art/science collaborations are normally funded and for what purpose they usually come into being.

Limited number of seats — contact Paul Digby, pj.digby@ntlworld.com, for more information.

(thanks to Lucy for the tip)

Just saw that Thomas Couser‘s new book Signifying Bodies: Disability in Contemporary Living has been published by Minnesota University Press.

According to the blurbs Couser explores “the extensive number of personal narratives by or about persons with disabilities” and “brilliantly demonstrates through synoptic readings, [how] these works challenge the ‘preferred rhetorics’ by which such narratives are usually written”. Looks like an excellent backdrop to our current plans for making the recently acquired collection of disability images from the Hans Knudsen Hospital available on the web. Read more here.

(By the way, Couser is just now writing a book titled ‘How Memoir Works: A Reader’s and Writer’s Guide’ — could be an inspiration for our current work on the generation of material collections as personal memoirs.)

Contemporary biomedicine is full of plastic artefacts — from disposable gloves and syringes in the clinic to microwells and pipettes in the research lab.

It’s materials and objects which make the preservation of the contemporary biomedical heritage for future generations pretty tricky. The short course ‘The Problem with Plastics’ given by Helen Alten at The Northern States Conservation Center last week would have been quite useful for the conservation tasks in medical museum like ours.

Maybe somebody would like to arrange a similar course for conservators in Europe?

Kunstmuseet Arken laver pt. en spørgeskemaundersøgelse for at finde ud af, hvordan museerne kan sikre sig en central position som aktive medspillere i fremtidens kulturelle landskab. Dvs. spørgsmål som:

• Er de danske museer på omgangshøjde med den kulturelle udvikling?
• Hvilke særlige oplevelser kan museerne tilbyde i informationssamfundets brede vifte af oplysnings- og underholdningstilbud?

Undersøgelsen (som er støttet af KUAS) udføres i dialog med danske museer og en række eksterne parter som Getty Research Institute, Getty Leadership Institute, Courtauld Institute, Tate, Københavns Universitet, Århus Universitet m.fl. Den skal munde ud i en rapport og derefter et seminar på Arken i maj 2010.

Her er Arkens følgebrev, hvor de skriver om baggrunden til undersøgelsen:

Museerne og det kulturelle landskab, 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 opdaterer deres selvforståelse i forhold til den omgivende virkelighed.

Samtidig er museerne blevet en markant spiller i oplevelsesøkonomien. Det danske museumsvæsen står i en overgangsfase, hvor museerne bevæger sig i retning af at være dynamiske udbydere af kulturoplevelser. Ifølge Danmarks Statistik havde de danske museer i 2008 10,6 mio. besøgende. Der er altså stor søgning til museerne, men hvad er det, museerne i fremtiden skal tilbyde de mange gæster? Det er af afgørende betydning at spørge til, hvilken rolle museet skal spille i det 21. århundrede; hvordan involverer man offentligheden i museet, og hvordan tjener museet bedst offentlighedens interesser?

Undersøgelsen gælder det samlede danske museumsvæsen og har derfor et bredt fokus på de kunst- natur- og kulturhistoriske museer. Undersøgelsen har et klart tværfagligt sigte og vil bl.a. behandle det potentiale, der kan ligge i innovative samarbejder på tværs af museumskategorier. Dens særlige opmærksomhedspunkter vil være museumsledelse, forskning og formidling. Et fokuspunkt vil desuden være behovet for at nytænke selve museumsoplevelsen ud fra et øget fokus på brugeren.

Som det er nu, er det primært universiteterne, som udvikler teorierne om museets rolle i samfundet. Her har man dog sjældent berøring med den praktiske virkelighed, som museerne navigerer i. Undersøgelsen vil udnytte museumsinstitutionens unikke placering mellem teori og praksis for at sikre et resultat, der sammentænker en teoretisk funderet kulturanalyse med de praktiske erfaringer, som museerne ligger inde med. For at sikre denne synergi vil undersøgelsen inddrage både universitetsforskere og museumsfolk, nationalt og internationalt.

Og her er spørgsmålene (om et par dage vil jeg poste mine svar her på bloggen):

1. Hvad er museumsvæsenets vigtigste opgave i fremtiden?
2. Hvad vil være den vigtigste udfordring inden for fremtidens museumsledelse, og hvordan bør museerne agere i forhold til denne udfordring?
3. Hvad er den vigtigste udfordring inden for indsamling og bevaring i fremtiden, og hvordan bør museerne agere i forhold til denne udfordring?
4. Hvordan ser du forskningens rolle på fremtidens museum, og hvad kan museerne gøre for at styrke deres forskning?
5. Hvad er museumsinstitutionens største potentiale i forhold til publikum og formidling, og hvordan udnytter museerne bedst dette potentiale?
6. Hvilke fremtidige udviklingsmuligheder ser du inden for kuratering af særudstillinger, og i hvilke retninger bør museerne nytænke deres udstillingsformater?
7. Hvad er den vigtigste fremtidige udfordring i forhold til økonomi og administration, og hvordan bør museerne agere i forhold til denne udfordring?

As I’ve written about before, we have a small but excellent (and recently restored) collection of moulages here at Medical Museion. Like they have many places in Europe.

Which made me quite excited to read Jim Edmonson’s travel report from Paris and the Musée des moulages de l’hôpital Saint-Louis on Avenue Claude-Vellefaux:

Read more here.

A few months ago, I advertised the meeting ‘KörperGegenwart, neue Technologien, neue Sammlungen’ to be held at the Deutsches Hygiene-Museum in Dresden, 22-24 April.

Now the program has been finalised — and it looks very good! After a plenary discussion on ‘Schauplätze der Schönheit: Klinik, Kunst, Medien und Museen’ on Thursday evening, there follows two days of presentations, most of which seem to be very relevant for the future of medical and science museums:

• ‘Körperspuren im Deutschen Hygiene-Museum. Strategien und Objekte’ (Susanne Roeßiger, Deutsches Hygiene-Museum, Dresden)
• ‘Auf Biegen und Brechen. Zur (In)Formierung des Körpers’ (Stefan Rieger, Ruhr-Universität Bochum)
• ‘Der Körper und seine Teile. Vom Präparat zum transplantierten Organ’ (Katrin Solhdju, Zentrum für Literatur- und Kulturforschung, Berlin)
• ‘Vom Körper zum Maß. Zur Geschichte der Konfektionsgrößen’ (Daniela Döring, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin)
• Vermessene Menschen. Vom Fingerabdruck bis zum Ganzkörperscan’ (Erika Feyerabend, BioSkop-Forum zur Beobachtung der Biowissenschaften e.V.)
• ‘Prothesen exponieren. Sichtbarkeiten neuer Technologien’ (Karin Harrasse, Kunsthochschule für Medien Köln)
• ‘Design in der Orthetik. Innovative Prinzipien der Körperanformung’ (Andreas Mühlenberend, resolutdesign; Hochschule Magdeburg-Stendal)
• ‘Wie sieht der bionische Mensch aus?’ (Friedrich Ditsch, Technische Universität Dresden)
• ‘”It’s a Material World”´: Situiertheit, Verkörperung und Materialität in der neueren Robotik’ (Jutta Weber, Universität Bielefeld)
• ‘Von der Nasen- zur Gesichtstransplantation: Zur Geschichte und Zukunft der kosmetischen Chirurgie’ (Sander L. Gilman, Emory University, Atlanta)
• ‘Science Fashion´: TechnoNaturen und deren alltagskulturellen Umdeutungen im System der Mode’ (Elke Gaugel, Akademie der Bildenden Künste, Wien)
• ‘Wie kommt die Seele ins Museum? Medizinische Museen und das Transzendentale’ (Robert Bud, Science Museum, London)
• ‘Den biomedizinischen Apparat ausstellen: Materialität und Digitalität in “Split + Splice” (Kopenhagen)’ (Susanne Bauer, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin)
• ‘Die Schärfung des Blicks. Kunstinterventionen in anatomischen Sammlungen’ (Ingeborg Reichle, Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften)
• ‘Körperwissen in der Kunst’ (Ute Meta Bauer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston)

As you can see, all presentations are in German — so the germanophilically challenged may have problems.

More here and here.

Everyone who has spent hours engaged in social networking services may recognise themselves in Irene Angelopoulos’s vitriolic attack on the “depressing daily grind” of virtual life (in Adbusters yesterday):

We toil late into the night, unleashing an endless stream of status updates and tweets in a desperate attempt to keep ourselves relevant, desirable and in […] Social Networking Sites (SNSs) promise limitless, boundless friendship – a phenomenon that should make us happier than ever. But our optimism over connectivity has gradually morphed into cynicism and resentment. It turns out virtual life is less about connectivity than self-branding […] Paranoid about how we’ll be perceived, we spend hour after hour trying to avoid the virtual consequences of being deemed uncool. We have more to worry about than our online acquaintances deleting us after we’re tagged in an unflattering photo […] Bleak, shallow and repetitive, virtual life seems increasingly less worth living. Users are beginning to realize that it’s not leisure, it’s work that borders on servitude.

But there’s a resistance movement on its way “among those tired of their virtual subjugation”:

In response to the electronic world’s rising indignation, virtual suicide sites like seppukoo.com and suicidemachine.org have started a countermovement, provoking users to kill their online selves and reclaim their real lives. These programs assist our virtual deaths by hacking into our profiles, completely annihilating our online personas and leaving no trace of our former selves behind. It’s social revolt for the online age: a mass uprising that will shatter the virtual hierarchy and restore order to our actual lives.

A desire for off-line reality! Is this what’s behind Jessica’s (Bioephemera) current blogcation?

The Galaxy Zoo team have just spread the news that the first scientific paper using Zoo 2 data has been submitted (to Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society). Doesn’t mean it’s published yet, but it’s nevertheless a great step for the Galaxy Zoo citizen science projekt — and an inspiration for other participatory science projects and even for museum 2.0 projects.

For the record, here’s my introductory words at the opening of our new exhibition, ‘Healthy Aging: A Lifespan Approach’, last Monday:

Last year, the Faculty of Health Sciences established a brand new exhibition area in the main building, paid for by a generous donation from the Kirsten and Freddy Johansen Foundation.

The Dean, Ulla Wewer, asked Medical Museion if we would like to be responsible for setting up a series of exhibitions to represent some of the research done here at the faculty. And we said yes, of course, also because I thought this was a great opportunity for a university museum like ours — not only to get extra exhibition space in the main artery of the faculty, but also to get an opportunity to think about museums and science communication in a more differentiated way.

What I mean is that museums generally think of science communication in terms of broad outreach to the general public. That’s the kind of public outreach we’re practicing in our beautiful old late-18th century museum building in the city area a few kilometers from here. The old building is a site for experimenting with new forms for science communication to the general public. The basic idea is to show how the biomedical sciences permeat our lives and culture at large.

But this new exhibition area in the Faculty’s main building is not primarily intended for the general public. We’re thinking of it as a different kind of museological laboratory — as a site where we can experiment with displays for more professional audiences, and as a testing ground for exhibitions that highlight the aesthetic, cultural and historical dimensions of science. The idea here is to let scientists and students experience how culture permeats science.

The new exhibition area was opened last September with a show called ‘Primary Substances: Treasures from the History of Protein Research’, occasioned by the new big Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research. And today we are opening the next temporary show, called ‘Healthy Aging: A Lifespan Approach’, occasioned by the cross-disciplinary Center for Healthy Aging, funded by the Nordea Foundation.

In contrast to the protein exhibition, which needed quite a lot of explanation to make sense, this new show is much more self-explanatory. Generally speaking, museum exhibitions try to strike a balance between three modes of expression — by means of text, by means of visualisation and by means of displaying material artefacts. Sometimes you try to mix these three modes, sometimes you try to separate them. In this show we have gone halfway between mixing and separating.

On the wall panels, we present, mainly through text, how the scientists in the Center for Healthy Aging here at the Faculty understand their work on healthy aging; each of the research programmes in the Center has got its own wall panel.

The showcases along the wall, in contrast, speak about healthy aging in the language of visual art. Three years ago, Medical Museion comissioned photographer Liv Carlé Mortensen to create 15 photo collages of 100 year-old Danish man and women. The result was a unique work of art, which I believe captures — in a beautiful but also somewhat disturbing way — the existential dimension of growing old.

Finally, in the freestanding showcases on the floor, we display (in the third, material, mode) a series of historical artefacts from the museum’s collections that represent four kinds of aids associated with old age – material things that makes old people overcome the deterioration of their bodily functions, things that help them see, hear, chew and walk better.

As usual, an exhibition is not only hard work, it’s also a teamwork. So I want to thank the members of our museum staff — Bente Vinge Pedersen, Ion Meyer, Nanna Gerdes, Jonas Paludan, Camilla Undén and Jacob Kjærgård — for selecting, preparing and handling the artefacts. We are also very grateful to Mikael Thorsted for his design work and to Lars Møller Nielsen for the graphic design. And finally thanks to the team-leaders in the Center for Healthy Aging for providing information about their research programmes, to the Director of the Center, Lene Juel Rasmussen, for economic support, and not least to the Center’s administrator, Tina Gottlieb – it was Tina, who originally came up with the idea that we could take today’s event as an occasion to show Liv Carlé Mortensens photo collages of centenarians to students and staff here at the faculty.