[Taxacom] Museums and the musem ethos

[Luis A. Ruedas]

The following item may be of interest to the readership at large:

 From Nature, 5 April, 446(7136):583

Museums need two cultures

The resignation of the head of the Smithsonian Institution highlights a 
misguided tendency for museums
to focus on communication at the expense of research. It also offers the 
chance of a fresh start.
Corporate managers like mission statements; scientists generally
don’t. Academic freedom often sits uneasily alongside the
goal-driven culture of the private sector. Researchers would
prefer not to be told what to do. It’s interesting, therefore, that 
scientists
at the Smithsonian Institution are so proud of their mission
statement — especially as they have only just welcomed the resignation
of Larry Small, a leader who angered many by trying to impose
a corporate ethos on the organization (see page 594).
But the vision they share is not that espoused by the departing
Small. They are proud instead to recite the mission statement of the
British scientist James Smithson, who funded the creation of their
institution in 1846 for the “increase and diffusion of knowledge”.
Small seemed either to not understand, or to not care too much, about
the fact that the museum should remain committed to both public
outreach and to new research. Worryingly, the leaders of some other
prominent museums also have this fault.
The scientists’ desire to fulfil both strands of Smithson’s vision is
notable. Many researchers in purely academic institutions often shy
away from outreach work. Some lack the skills. Others fear, often
rightly, that funders will not reward them for time spent communicating
what they do. Museums such as the Smithsonian are among
the only places where scientists are required to do both. They are
historical oddities, as it is now extremely rare for such dual-purpose
organizations to be created. Yet the combination of missions leads
to a special form of science communication.
When outside professionals are drafted in to build exhibits, as is
the trend in many natural-history and science museums, there are
benefits. But there are also risks unless professional researchers continue
to play a leading role. Be they palaeobiologists or historians of
science, their involvement should lead to the creation of exhibits that
intimately reflect the science behind the display in a way that other
forms of science communication, such as science writing, cannot.
Some of these displays are now badly dated, but the galleries of dusty
fossils that gave scientific curators a bad name were dumped years
ago by the more innovative institutions.
The Natural History Museum in London, for example, is creating a
centre that will allow visitors to see parts of the museum’s extraordinary
research collections and to interact with the scientists who work
on them. At the Smithsonian, researchers want to channel real-time
data from animal monitoring experiments at the institution’s field
stations into exhibits about the species involved.
Such projects happen naturally in organizations that do both science
and science communication, yet the research side of many of
these institutions is suffering. Small paid too little heed to it during
his seven years at the Smithsonian. The collections division at the
Science Museum in London, which houses curators who also do
historical research, has been gutted over the past 20 years. In others,
such as the Academy of Natural Sciences
in Philadelphia, which is profiled
on page 605, parts of the collection
have been sold to make up for funding
shortfalls.
This gloomy trend now needs to be
reversed, and there are signs of hope.
For example, the new head of the Philadelphia
academy, ornithologist William
Brown, has a track record of valuing
and understanding science. As the Smithsonian’s regents begin their
search for a successor to Small, they should look at Brown’s plans,
or those of London’s Natural History Museum, because museums
that combine science and outreach are vibrant and unique places.
Exhibits get the media attention and attract donors. But take away the
in-house scholars who help build them, and museums take another
step towards becoming little more than theme parks.