ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

I know this is long, but someone did ask for a discussion of science  
center versus science museum

I'll have to admit at the outset that I am jumping into this thread a  
little late, so if I have missed important context I apologize. I did  
try to go back through my unemptied trash and catch up.

I am also only on my first cup of coffee this Saturday morning, so  
maybe I am not quite firing on all cylinders yet this morning.

Those two qualifications notwithstanding I have to say that I have  
officially taken offense at the comments in the post below and I'm a  
little troubled by the tenor of the posts in this thread that  
proceeded it.

Let me also recognize that what this thread and the Watson thread  
before it seemed to be discussing was popular perceptions of science  
centers versus science museums, and before that Watson's, but the  
perception that "museums" are places where things are statically  
displayed under glass is a thought I have heard expressed from many  
of my science center colleagues in meetings and ASTC conferences, so  
I think I am on safe ground when I believe that this perception is  
wide spread among many in the science center field.

I'll also qualify that last statement and admit that often the  
sentiment that museums are merely places where old things sit under  
glass have come in the context of discussions of the inclusion of  
history of science into science center exhibitions (and vice versa)  
so I am admittedly lumping together similar, but not exact,  
sentiments but the bottom line is that many professionals in the  
science center field view science museums and history museums as dull  
places with nothing more than old things under glass.

However, if this is your view, as it seems to be the posters below  
view, I must say that either out of ignorance or the desire to force  
generalizations and categories on a diverse filed, you really don't  
seem to be aware of what is actually going on out there in non- 
science center institutions and you need to get out more.

Below is a quick list of programs that choose to build bridges  
instead of walls and the wonderful things they are doing while the  
rest of you smolder in the small boxes you have made for yourselves.

1. First allow me to address both the "things-under-glass" and the  
"US has no leading science museums" meme. I know of no polite way to  
say this, but that is a ridiculous statement on its face. The two  
most visited museums in the world are science museums and are located  
in the United States. They both have world class collections and they  
both do amazing, cutting edge dynamic programming and interpretation.  
They even have Imax theaters. These would be the National Air and  
Space Museum and National Museum of Natural History in Washington.   
 From the context of both Julia's and Watson's quotes one could  
conclude they meant Medical Museums specifically and not Science  
Museums broadly defined. ( am pretty certain neither were thinking of  
Natural History Museums or Science and Technology Museums when they  
spoke. But that shows the inexactness of their language and/or  
perceptions, not the dearth of top notch science museums in the US.  
Do these museums have things under glass? Absolutely, and I would put  
moon rocks, the Hope Diamond and the Wright Flyer next to your  
robotic dinosaurs for popularity any day, but they also have between  
them insect zoos, butterfly habitats (opening soon), discovery rooms,  
How Things Fly Galleries, and a host of other "dynamic" exhibitions  
and exhibition components.  Oh and they also have real practicing  
scientists doing actual cutting edge science.

2. I am in charge of the Hands On Science Center within the National  
Museum of American History. Were we not closed for renovations, you  
could come in and participate in personally facilitated experiments  
that are recreations of historic work of people like Ellen Swallows  
Richards, Joseph Henry, Gouvernor Kemble Warren and Ben Franklin as  
well as experiments related to the history of Polio, the Star  
Spangled Banner and other activities related to the History found in  
our exhibitions. We also have scientific instruments, both replicas  
and real, for people to touch and operate. Nothing under glass  
anywhere and yet we are studying history in a museum. And since I  
have been there dozens of representatives of Science Centers from  
around the world have come to our Museum to replicate our model in  
their Centers.

3. A few years back museum educators, museum curators, and historians  
at the National Museum of American History created an exhibition  
called Invention at Play that wedded the best methods of history  
museums and science centers in a holistic examination of the role of  
play in both the lives of famous inventors and innovation in our  
personal lives. A large and small version of that  exhibition has now  
been traveling under the auspices of ASTC to many of your  
institutions the last couple of years to great acclaim and large  
visitation. Yes, a Museum exhibition can be dynamic enough for a  
Science Center.

Now that I am on my second cup cup of coffee, I will admit what many  
of you may have noticed already. I have in fact fudged a little.  
First, I have harped on only one side's prejudices in this divide.  
While I find that many in the Science Center field have an  
unwarranted view of museums as being dull places with "things under  
glass" and science centers as being "dynamic,"  I have also found  
that many in the museum field see museums as being full of  
scholarship and education and science centers as full of superficial  
piffle and a place of entertainment. I started my career in museums  
of industry and technology and moved to more science oriented content  
later. Having been active in both fields I can attest that both  
prejudices exist, both sides tend to feel that nothing can be learned  
from the other and that both prejudices can have at least of kernel  
of truth, probably more. But these represent characatures of each  
type of institution held by people who are not aware of the wonderful  
work being done by the others and I suspect their work in their own  
field reflects this lack of exposure and imagination.

I also fudged a bit in my examples. I already noted the hazy gray  
area between Natural History Museums and Aero-Space Museums. But both  
the Hands On Science Center and the Invention at Play exhibitions  
borrowed heavily from Science Center traditions and even consulted  
with Science Centers and some of the professionals involved with  
their creation are more likely to identify themselves with the  
Science Center profession than the history museum profession.  
Invention at Play specifically was created by the Lemelson Center for  
the Study of Invention and Innovation at NMAH. But this makes my  
point, I think. While there are differences, whether real or  
perceived, between having the words "Center" and/or "Museum" in your  
title, (my site has the words "institution," museum," AND "center" in  
its name. I wonder what that signifies?) I think those differences  
will break down when you look closely at them and try to categorize  
every institution as one or the other. The extremes will fall neatly  
into one side or the other and I would argue it is there you will  
find the full flowering of real life examples of the stereotypes in  
full bloom. But most institutions will fall into some mixture in the  
middle with some parts "center" some parts "museum" (traditionally  
defined as reflected in this thread, not my definition) and, it may  
be just my prejudice, it is in these institutions that the really  
interesting and innovative stuff can be found.

And the view expressed by the previous poster and echoed by many  
colleagues in personal conversations that museums are static places  
with things under glass is offensive to those of us who have spent  
decades creating exhibitions, activities, interactives, and other  
interpretive experiences fighting that paradigm. We have worked too  
hard for too long for our efforts to be mis-characterized or ignored  
by our colleagues.

And, to return to the scientist who started this whole thing, am I  
interpreting those posts correctly as somehow people are surprised  
that Watson said this? A little surprise that he also said that many  
scientists are dull and sometimes stupid? If you are surprised that  
scientists can be cranky, dull, or stupid, might I suggest you visit  
a science museum and learn ABOUT science and scientists and not just  
genuflect to scientific  demonstrations at interactive altars. (Yes,  
that is an offensive stereotype of science centers, but now that I am  
on my third cup of coffee, I feel a little snarkier)
I am now switching to decaf.

Matthew White
Director, Hands On Science Center
Smithsonian Institution
National Museum of American History
Behring Center
[log in to unmask]

On Jun 23, 2007, at 12:59 AM, Julia Berger wrote:

> ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology  
> Centers
> Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related  
> institutions.
> ********************************************************************** 
> *******
>
> I did catch that quote from Dr. Watson, and it did make me think.   
> I just finished up a large paper (details forthcoming) and I  
> finally decided to
> commit to "science center" rather than "science museum".  I've been  
> struggling to decide on this for some time (basically any time I  
> open my mouth),
> and I will agree, the US does not have so many science "museums",  
> and even fewer prominent ones.  That is, a bunch of collections  
> housed in glass cases.  The article in question highlights a  
> personal collection of medical effluvia - a museum "collection" if  
> you will.
>
> Our many excellent science "centers" are dynamic places where glass  
> cases are few and far between, and that's okay by me.
>
> Problem is, I bet most people reading that article don't stop to  
> make these types of distinctions.
>
> Here's one for a Starbucks cup:
>
> "Science museum vs. Science center - discuss."
>
> -Julia
>
> fresh M.Ed. who is in-between stuff
> University of Washington
> Bay Area Science Centers

***********************************************************************
For information about the Association of Science-Technology Centers and the Informal Science Education Network please visit www.astc.org.

Check out the latest case studies and reviews on ExhibitFiles at www.exhibitfiles.org.

The ISEN-ASTC-L email list is powered by LISTSERVR software from L-Soft. To learn more, visit
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html.

To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]