“What do
scientists do?” in museums: representations of scientific practice in museum
exhibitions and activities
Ana Delicado
Instituto
de Ciências Sociais
Universidade
de Lisboa,
Portugal
ana.delicado@ics.ul.pt
Abstract:
This
paper aims to discuss whether “science in the making” is given any kind of
representation in museums. Science museums have been being promoted as adequate
environments to teach science, to promote scientific culture or literacy, to
develop scientific vocations. But do they really show how science is made, what
scientists do, how research institutions work?
Science
museums and science centres mostly favour presenting either the history
(materialized in scientific instruments, most of them obsolete) or the results
of science (scientific principles illustrated by interactive devices). Very
little reference is made to contemporary science, to the organization of
scientific work, to everyday life in the laboratory. Yet, other kinds of
scientific museums already include in their exhibitions some reference to
scientific practices. Such is the case of museums of palaeontology or
archaeology, which show pictures or 3D models of diggings, or museums of
anthropology, which acknowledge fieldwork and how objects were collected in
their exhibitions.
Nevertheless,
exhibitions are just one dimension of museum life. Scientific museums often
promote an array of activities alongside exhibitions (live experiments,
workshops, conferences, visits to laboratories), which in some way deal with
recent research and establish a connection between visitors and working
scientists.
The content and purposes of representations of
“science in progress” will also be questioned. What explains the differences
between scientific domains and dissimilar types of scientific museums? Which
images of science are favoured? What kind of work is shown? Can museums
effectively promote public debate and participation on controversial and
cutting-edge scientific issues?
I would
like to create a museum where the visitor could be a palaeontologist for a day.
Instead of looking at a dinosaur with a label and read that it’s a Dinosaurus
Rex and lived 65 million years ago, I want him to understand how we know it’s a
Dinosaurus Rex, how we chose that name, how we dig for it, how palaeontology is
done, how science is done. (…) We can’t deliver and sell science as a finished
product, that is not discussed, that comes out already done, we have to present
science as a dynamic process, built by scientists, constituted by hard work, by
exertion, by difficulties, but which is true science. (Head of Paleontology, Museu da
Lourinha)
Scientific
museums play several different roles. However, in the last few decades, one of
them has gained special pre-eminence: the promotion of public understanding of
science. This term and others similar (scientific culture, scientific literacy,
public dissemination of science, science communication) encompass a diversified
range of aims (Fourez 1997, Durant 1998, Gregory and Miller 1998): to provide
scientific information, to promote a positive attitude towards science, to
foster scientific vocations or “callings”, to facilitate dialogue between
scientists and lay people. Though not exclusively, scientific museums have been
considered privileged institutions to develop these activities (Macdonald and
Silverstone 1992, Durant 1996, Gregory and Miller 1998, Einsiedel and Einsiedel
2004): they are public, open places, with a multitude of facilities
(exhibitions halls, auditoriums, workshop rooms, libraries, cafeterias),
frequently in close connection with universities and research centres,
harbouring collections that can be shown in multiple ways and put to several
different uses, an ideal meeting ground for scientists and the lay audiences.
Accordingly, do these museums show what scientists do and how
science is done? This is not a new discussion, but it has emerged mainly in the
field of public understanding of science studies, it is debated among museum
and PUS professionals and above all with the aim of improving science
communication with the public (see Arnold 1996, and the collective works edited
by Farmelo and Carding 1997 and by Chitetenden et al 2004). Facing accusations
that museums (and most PUS efforts) promote an idealized vision of science,
centred on technological progress, successful achievements and uncontested
basic laws and principles, efforts have recently been made to deal with new
subjects in exhibitions and activities: current research, controversies, social
implications of scientific development, the process of research (see, for
instance, Felhammer 2000, Kraeftner and Kroell 2003, Durant 2004).
This paper attempts, from the viewpoint of the social studies of
science, to analyse representations of scientific activities and science
professionals in museum exhibitions and activities. Unlike most studies,
focused on science museums[1]
and science centres, it is based on a broad definition of scientific museums,
which covers natural history museums, archaeological museums and anthropological
museums. It draws on a PhD thesis[2],
whose empirical endeavours included document analysis, interviews and
observation of exhibitions and activities. It deals exclusively with Portuguese
museums; though some considerations may be applicable to other countries,
others do not, in light of specific national conditions[3].
In
general terms, the representation of scientific results is at the core
of most scientific museums. Though there is a debate on whether scientific
museums can teach science or merely create an appetite for it (Butler 1992,
Miles and Tout 1998, Gregory and Miller 1998), these museums aim fundamentally
to show what science “knows” about a certain subject. They work as “showcases”
for scientific disciplines, tapping on the body of knowledge made available by
decades or centuries of research to present to the public artefacts, images and
texts.
Their collections and their exhibitions are considered as
potential resources for instructing the public on the beauty, the importance
and the value of sciences and scientific research (Lewenstein and
Allison-Bunnel 1998: 159)
Science
museums frequently display the technological outputs of scientific research:
machines, products, and inventions[4].
These traditional displays aim to demonstrate technological progress and
national scientific prowess (Morton 1990, Butler 1992, Gregory and Miller
1998). However, since Portuguese science museums are university museums (whose
collections derive more from teaching than research) and Portuguese science can
be credited with few innovative discoveries (though there are exceptions, such
as the angiography technique, given a due emphasis at the Museum of Egas
Moniz), research results are not a common feature in this type of museum[5].
On the
other hand, science centres, strongly influenced by international trends[6],
use interactive devices to illustrate and “prove” some well-established
“scientific law” (generally in mechanics, electricity or optics) or
consolidated knowledge on a given natural phenomenon (such as volcanoes, sun
radiation, the cycle of water, the formation of dunes) (Butler 1992, Bradburne
1998, Durant 1998, Bennett 2000).
Thematic
exhibitions[7] usually draw
on the latest “finished” knowledge on a subject, though seldom referring to the
origins of that knowledge (which scientists, which institutions, which research
projects, which publications or patents). Claims of scientific truth are stated
both through written panels and interactive devices: little margin is left for
uncertainty, controversy or the unknown (Butler 1992, Macdonald and Silverstone
1992, Arnold 1996).
What science centres do not generally make clear is that
the demonstrations they present to the public are part of an existing knowledge
system. There is a danger that science is presented as simplistic truth, a
mirror image of a ‘real’ physical world. The nature of scientific knowledge is,
however, more complex and, in some cases, more problematic. (Butler 1992: 113)
Natural
history museums, archaeological museums and anthropological museums usually
present objects collected and organised according to current scientific
classifications, interpretations and theories. Typological, evolutionary or
ecological displays reflect the dominant theoretical paradigm in a discipline
(see Stocking 1985, Triegger 1985, Durrans 1990, Knell 1996, Van Praet et al
2000, Girault and Guichard 2000). The information provided in labels and panels
about each specimen derives from previous research. However, here also there is
little mention to the processes and authors of that research.
Thus,
though in minority, which representations can be found in scientific museums
concerning by whom, how and why these research results where achieved?
Considering the contributions made by several decades of social studies of
science, how have museums responded to changing perspectives on the nature of
scientific work?
Regarding
the representation of scientists, science museums often mention the
“founding fathers” of scientific research, through portraits and biographical
notes, alongside the principles, laws and machines they have invented.
“Individual genius” is highlighted (Durant 1998) and the vindication of history
is used as source of legitimacy (personages are chosen by their unquestioned
contribution to the “advancement of knowledge”). Such is the case of the
Science Museum of the University of Lisbon[8],
whose exhibition starts with a presentation of posters depicting Aristotle,
Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein, Max Planck and Heisenberg. Living
working scientists are seldom mentioned in exhibitions and scant regard is paid
to the centrality of teamwork in modern day research (Knorr-Cetina 1981). However, some active scientists do
participate in museum activities, such as lectures, workshops and
demonstrations[9].
In some
cases, scientists are depicted as an abstract category and displays resort to
archetypal images of men or women in white lab coats holding test tubes. For
instance, at the Gaia Biological Park, in an exhibition about environmental
threats, there is diorama of a laboratory, containing a mannequin in a white
lab coat, surrounded by microscopes and test tubes, accompanied by the
inscription “Scientific research opens the door to solving problems!” This conventional representation of a
scientist is a very limited one: it applies only to chemistry or the life
sciences, leaving out mathematics, physics, engineering, and social science.
Mainly
as strategies to attract young visitors, science museums and science centres
also make use of images derived from popular culture. The wonders and mysteries
of scientific research are thus represented as similar to magical practices,
wizardry and illusionism.
Representations
of scientific practices, namely instruments, methods and techniques can
also be found in museums.
Scientific
instruments are by far the most common
metonymy to symbolise scientific work in museums. However, most of the
instruments displayed, mainly in science museums (but sometimes also in natural
history museums and museums of medical history), are quite distant from the
actual devices used in current research[10]. Museum instruments are usually obsolete and
static, viewed in essence as works of art rather than as functional artefacts:
“the traditional method of many science museums that depict the scientific
revolution of the 17th century (…), that is, the practice of placing scientific
instruments of brass and hardwood in glass cases and illuminating them against
a background of green velvet” (Lindquist 2000: x). An exception to this rule
can be seen at the Museum of Medical History of the University of Porto: series
of surgical instruments on display comprehend both 19th century
tortoiseshell, brass and steel bistouries and 21st century disposable
plastic utensils. According to the museum director, this serves two
purposes: to safeguard short-lived
artefacts, so that future generations will not think operations were performed
bare-handed; and to show lay people, who probably have no idea what goes on
inside a operating theatre, what sort of instruments are currently used.
Additionally,
some interactive devices in science centres use scientific instruments, such as
microscopes, computers and measuring appliances (voltmeters, electroscopes,
galvanometers). Though probably not used now in cutting-edge research, the
manipulation of these instruments by the public does allow for a closer
representation of scientific work.
One
other quite common exhibit in science museums and centres is scientific imaging:
photos obtained through electronic microscopes, X-rays and ultrasonograhy
pictures, scientific drawing (used mainly in the life sciences), graphs and
diagrams. These pictorial representations are quite close to the ones used in
scientific publications, to convey research results and to transfer information
between scientists (Latour 1989 and 1993).
Interactive
apparatus on science centres vary from the basic “hands-on/push button” gadget
to the so-called “minds-on” replication of the “scientific method”:
hypothesis-experimentation-observation-conclusions. In the Science Museum of
the University of Lisbon, the permanent exhibition is preceded by a placard
that exhorts visitors to:
“Observe. Perform the
experiments but read the texts beforehand. Try to apprehend the meaning of the
results you have achieved. Try to obtain conclusions”
Though
in line with much scientific rhetoric, this is a crude, idealized and
mechanical representation of scientific research. It does not show the
indeterminacy, the serendipity and the choices that pervade scientific work
(Knorr-Cetina 1981, Latour and Woolgar 1986, Bradburne 1998, Gregory and Miller
1998).
In
Palaeontology and Archaeology museums can sometimes be found mention, in labels
and texts, of some of the techniques (e.g. radiocarbon dating) and deductive
reasoning (e.g. the analysis of the shape of dinosaur’s bones to infer their
behaviour) used to reach interpretations and conclusions. On the one hand,
current knowledge is presented not as “scientific fact” or “truth” but as a
result of evidence-based procedures, that can be reversed by technological
innovations (better analytical techniques) or new findings. On the other hand,
this presentation approach adds legitimacy to scientific areas that rely on
very scarce evidence.
Laboratory
work, much at the root of the first
studies in anthropology of science[11],
is also a subject for representation in scientific museums. The Science Museum
of the University of Lisbon has just finished restoring its 19th
century Chemistry Laboratory, with the intention of presenting to the public
both a historical display, based on authentic artefacts, and facilities for
conducting experiments (rather like the Whipple Museum – Bennet 2001). It is
quite frequent to find small laboratories in various kinds of museums (science
museums and centres, natural history museums, even archaeological museums)
where scientists demonstrate or where visitors perform basic bio-chemical
tests. These are tried and tested experiments, to illustrate well-known
principles and laws, using rudimentary and inexpensive equipment, quite distant
from innovative research. However, some museums do organize visits to research
laboratories as part of their external activities.
Fieldwork is by far the most common form of scientific practice
represented in museum exhibitions. Both in palaeontology and archaeology
museums, it is quite frequent to find photographs, maps or even dioramas
representing field excavations[12].
These displays may serve the purpose of showing the more glamorous side of
scientific research, omitting more gruelling and routine tasks. Some of these museums offer their visitors
the opportunity to participate in field visits and even fieldwork.
The
vast majority of ethnographic museums show only collections of artefacts, with
little mention of by whom, how and why they were gathered. Yet, some museums,
closer to academic anthropology (with professional trained anthropologists,
that actually carry out research) have started to include in their exhibitions
photos and information regarding the fieldwork underlying the collection. Such
is the case of “Time for baskets”, an exhibition presented at the National
Ethnology Museum, based on research for a PhD degree, where the curator has
chosen to show, alongside African baskets, photos of how they were collected,
both by herself in the late nineties and by museum anthropologists in the
sixties, during colonial rule.
If
visitors search for in museums information regarding scientific careers, the workings
of scientific institutions or the structure of the scientific system, they will
not find it. The representations of the social context of science[13]
are completely absent from museums. Issues as crucial as the academic rites of passage,
the centrality of publication in peer reviewed journals or controversies among
scientists are perhaps considered of no interest to the general public or
impossible to display through the museum medium. At the same time, universities
and research centres are possibly becoming more transparent, more open to
public scrutiny and more willing to show what they do[14].
On the
whole, it is quite difficult to see “what scientists do” in scientific museums.
Nevertheless, the research process is more frequently displayed in
Palaeontology, Archaeology and Anthropology museums than in science museums and
centres. This may be due to several reasons:
Whereas,
Scientific
museums are products of the history of scientific disciplines, science policies
and international trends and influences. Many different narratives can be on
display in museums: the glories and successes of scientific research, the
accumulated knowledge on the world around us, the process of research, the
unexpected impacts of science and technology in social life. These narratives
tell us much not only about museums, but also about science itself and how it
wants to be seen by the public eye.
Allison-Bunnell,
Stephen (2001) “Making nature real again: natural history exhibits and public
rhetorics of science at the Smithsonian Institution in the early 1960s”, in
Macdonald, S. (ed), The politics of display: museums, science, culture,
London, Routledge: 77-97
Arnold,
Ken (1996), “Presenting science as product or as process: museums and the
making of science”, in Pearce, S. (ed.) Exploring science in museums,
London, The Athlone Press: 57-78
Bennett,
Jim (2000) “Beyond understanding: curatorship and access in science museums”,
in Lindquist, S. (org.), Museums of modern science, Canton, Watson
Publishing International: 55-60
Bennett,
Jim (2001), “Can science museums take history seriously?”, in Macdonald, S.
(ed), The politics of display: museums, science, culture, London,
Routledge: 173-182
Bradburne,
James (1998) “Dinosaurs and white elephants: the science centre in the
twenty-first century”, Public Understanding of Science, 7: 237-253
Bourdieu, Pierre (1975) “La spécificité du champ
scientifique et les conditions sociales du progrès de la raison »,
Sociologie et sociétés, vol. VII, n. 1 : 91-117
Butler,
Stella (1992) Science and technology museums, Leicester, Leicester
University Press
Chalmers,
Neil (2004) “Public understanding of research in a natural history museum: the
Darwin Centre” in Chittenden, D. et al (eds.) Creating connections: museums
and the public understanding of research, Walnut Creek, Altamira Press:
276-288
Crowther, David (1989),
“Archaeology, material culture and museums”, in Pearce, Susan (ed.), Museum studies in material culture, Leicester, Leicester University
Press: 35-46
Dias, Nélia (2001) “Does anthropology need
museums? Teaching ethnographic museology in Portugal thirty years later”, in
Bouquet, M. (ed), Academic anthropology and the museum, New York,
Berghahn Books: 92-104
Durant,
John (1996) “Science museums or just museums of science?”, in Pearce, S. (ed.) Exploring
science in museums, London, The Athlone Press: 148-161
Durant,
John (1998) “Introduction” in idem (ed.) Museums and the public
understanding of science, London, Science Museum: 7-14
Durant,
John (2004) “The challenge and opportunity of presenting ‘unfinished science’”,
in Chittenden, D. et al (eds.) Creating connections: museums and the public
understanding of research, Walnut Creek, Altamira Press: 47-60
Durrans,
Brian (1990) “The future of the other: changing cultures on display in
ethnographic museums”, in Lumley, R. (ed.) The museum time-machine,
London, Routledge: 144-169
Einsiedel,
Albert A. and Einsiedel, Edna F. (2004) “Museums as agora: diversifying approaches
to engaging publics in research”, in Chittenden, D. et al (eds.) Creating
connections: museums and the public understanding of research, Walnut
Creek, Altamira Press: 73-86
Farmelo,
Graham (2004) “Only connect: linking the public with current scientific
research” in Chittenden, D. et al (eds.) Creating connections: museums and
the public understanding of research, Walnut Creek, Altamira Press: 1-26
Farmelo,
Graham and Carding, Janet (1997), “Introduction”, in idem Here and now:
contemporary science and technology in museums and science centres, London,
Science Museum: 15-30
Fehlhammer,
Wolf Peter (2000), “Communication of Science in the Deutsches Museum”,
Lindquist, S. (org.), Museums of modern science, Canton, Watson
Publishing International: 17-27
Ferriot,
Dominique and Jacomy, Bruno (2000) “The Musée des Arts et Métiers- renovation
issues”, in Lindquist, S. (org.), Museums of modern science, Canton,
Watson Publishing International: 29-42
Fourez,
Gerald (1997) “Scientific and technological literacy as social practice”,
Social Studies of Science, vol. 27: 903-936
Girault,
Yves and Guichard, Françoise (2000) “Specificité de la didactique muséale en
biologie” in Eidelman, J. and Van Praët, M. (dir.) La museologie des
sciences et ses publics: regards croisé sur la Grande Galerie de l’evolution du
Musée national d’ histoire naturelle, Paris, PUF: 63-74
Gregory,
Jane and Miller, Steve (1998), Science in public: communication, culture and
credibility, New York, Plenum Trade
Knell,
Simon (1996) “The roller-coaster of museum geology”, in Pearce, S. (ed.) Exploring
science in museums, London, The Athlone Press: 29-56
Knorr-Cetina,
Karin (1981), The manufacture of knowledge – an essay on the constructivist
and contextual nature of science, Oxford, Pergamon Press
Kraftner,
Bernd and Kroell, Judith (2003) “Goodbye tomato – good morning rice! Walking on
a storyboard”, 5th Decennial Conference of the Association of Social
Anthropologists of the UK and Commonwealth, Manchester, 14th-18th
July 2003
Latour,
Bruno and Woolgar, Steve (1986), Laboratory life, the construction of
scientific facts, Princeton, Princeton University Press
Latour,
Bruno (1989), Science in action, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press
Latour, Bruno (1993), “Le travail de l’image ou l’intelligence
savante redistribuée”, in idem, Petites leçons de sociologie des sciences,
Paris, Éditions la Découverte
Lewenstein,
Bruce and Allison-Bunnel, Steven (1998), “Au service simultané du public et des
scientifiques”, in Schiele, B. and Koster E. (dir.), La revolution de la
museologie des sciences”, Lyon, Presses Universitaires de Lyon: 159-173
Lewenstein,
Bruce V. and Bonney, Rick (2004), “Different ways of looking at public
understanding of research”, in Chittenden, D. et al (eds.) Creating connections:
museums and the public understanding of research, Walnut Creek, Altamira
Press: 63-72
Lindquist,
Svante (2000), “Introduction: Einstein’s pipe”, in idem, Museums of modern
science, Canton, Watson Publishing International: vii-xii
Macdonald,
Sharon, Silverstone, Roger (1992) “Science on display: the representation of
scientific controversy in museum exhibitions”, Public Understanding of Science,
1: 69-87
Miles,
Roger and Tout, Alan (1998) “Exhibitions and the public understanding of
science” in Durant, J. (ed.) Museums and the public understanding of science,
London, Science Museum: 27-33
Miller, Steve et al
(2002) Benchmarking the promotion of RTD culture and Public Understanding of
Science – report from the expert group, European Commission
Morton,
Alan (1990) “Tomorrow’s yesterdays: science museums and the future”, in Lumley,
R. (ed.) The museum time-machine, London, Routledge: 128-143
Pohlman,
Don (2004) “Catching science in the act: Mysteries of Çatalhoyuk”, in
Chittenden, D. et al (eds.) Creating connections: museums and the public
understanding of research, Walnut Creek, Altamira Press: 267-275
Schaffer,
Simon (1997) “Temporary contemporary: some puzzles of science in action”, in
Farmelo, G. and Carding, J. (org.) Here and now: contemporary science and
technology in museums and science centres, London, Science Museum: 31-39
Schaffer,
Simon (2000) “Object lessons”, in Lindquist, S. (org.), Museums of modern
science, Canton, Watson Publishing International: 61-76
Stocking, George (1985a), "Essays on
museums and material culture", in idem, History of Anthropology, vol. 3, Objects and others, essays on museums
and material culture, Madison, University of Wisconsin: 3-14
Trigger, Bruce G. (1985) “Writing the history
of archaeology: a survey of trends”, in Stocking, George (ed) History of Anthropology, vol. 3, Objects and others, essays on museums
and material culture, Madison, University of Wisconsin: 218-235
Van
Praët, Michel, Démaret, Héléne and Drouin, Jean-Marc (2000) “L’esprit du lieu,
un concept museologique”, in Eidelman, J. and Van Praët, M. (dir.) La
museologie des sciences et ses publics: regards croisé sur la Grande Galerie de
l’evolution du Musée national d’ histoire naturelle, Paris, PUF: 15-29
Ward,
Lorraine (1997) “Lessons of Science Box”, in Farmelo, G. and Carding, J. (org.)
Here and now: contemporary science and technology in museums and science
centres, London, Science Museum: 83-90
Wynne,
Brian (1995), “Public understanding of science”, in Jasanoff, S. et al (eds), Handbook
of Science and Technology studies, London, Sage: 361-388
A version of this article was first presented at the 4S & EASST
Conference 2004 Public Proofs - Science,
Technology and Democracy, Paris, 25th-28th
August 2004, in the session Claims of Truth
– Forms of Evidence: Manufacturing the Scientific Subject in Visual, Material
and Written Narratives of Evidence, organised by
Priska Gisler and Caroline Wiedmer.
[1] According to the UNESCO classification, science
museums relate to one or several exact sciences or technologies: astronomy,
mathematics, physics, chemistry, medical science, and engineering.
[2] PhD awarded by the University of Lisbon in 2006,
with the support of a grant from the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia.
[3] The Portuguese scientific system has only recently
started to develop and to draw nearer to its European counterparts (in terms of
research funding, number of researchers, research institutions, research
output). Scientific museums are still scarce and hindered by several
deficiencies (lack of funding, insufficient trained personnel, bureaucratic hurdles).
Policies for promoting PUS are recent and still very much oriented towards
scientific literacy and promoting a positive image of science.
[4] Two of the best examples being the Musée des Arts
et Métiers (Ferriot and Jacomy 2000) and the Science Museum in London (Butler
1992).
[5] However, in other technical museums, such as
transport museums, “traditional” displays of machines, ordered chronologically
and by technical complexity, can be seen.
[6] The first science centre only opened in Portugal
in 1996. Though some exhibitions were devised by Portuguese teams, they were
strongly influenced by displays in science centres in other countries.
Temporary exhibitions acquired abroad (from the Science Museum, the Cité des
Sciences, Heureka!, the Deutsche Museum) are also quite common.
[7] Recent examples of thematic exhibitions in
Portuguese science centres are “The brain”, “Elementary, my dear friend” and
“In the deep ocean”(Science Alive Centre Algarve), “Flight”, “Music in the
air”, “To communicate”, “The human factor – Living Ergonomics” and “The hair
decoded” (Knowledge Pavilion, Lisbon).
[8] This museum combines aspects of a traditional
science museum (display of scientific instruments, emphasis on the history of
science) with typical exhibits from a science centre (interactive devices),
which, in the words of its former director, makes it a “third generation”
science museum, combining the best of the past two generations.
[9] “It is the scientist rather than the science that
really inspires audiences. Therefore, an easy access to lecturers from
universities and research institutions (‘scientists to touch’) is vital to
introduce cutting-edge science in museums” (Fehlhammer 2000: 18).
[10] In Latour’s terminology (1989), they are no longer
instruments, since they have ceased to be applied to create visualisations used
in scientific texts.
[11] In the classic work by Latour and Woolgar (1986),
observation of laboratory life is the means to examine “the way in which the
daily activities of working scientists lead to the construction of facts.” (p.
40).
[12] The Science Museum of Minnesota has organised an
exhibition about archaeological diggings in Turkey that focused on science as a
social process (Pohlman 2004). Allison-Bunnel (2001)
analyses a didactic film produced in the sixties by the Smithsonian Institute
about the work of scientists in the museum.
[13] Which has been at the core of several seminal
works in the social studies of science, such as Bourdieu 1975, Knorr-Cetina
1981, or Latour 1987.
[14] This may be due to the need to attract public
funding, students and research contracts in an increasingly competitive
environment.
[15] “Contemporary
Physics is more difficult to exhibit. Is has accelerators and such things; instruments
do have historical relevance but little museological value. (…) computers,
electronics, would be interesting, but instruments nowadays are so complex”
(interview Physics Museum, University of Coimbra)
[16] However, some museums and science centres in
Europe have already set in motion successful programmes and exhibitions on
contemporary science. That is the case both of the “Big Four” (in terms of
visitors, budget and personnel – see Miller et al 2002)- the Science Museum
(Ward 1997, Farmelo 2004, Durant 2004, Mazda 2004), the Darwin Centre at the
Natural History Museum of London (Chalmers 2004), the Cité des Sciences in
Paris (Farmelo 2004) and the Deutsche Museum (Felhammer 2000) – and of smaller
scale initiatives, such as XPERIMENT! Working group for the experimentation
with scientific ideas (Kraftner and Kroell 2003).
[17] Social studies of science are a
comparatively new field in Portugal, which has still to earn the trust and
recognition of “hard” scientists and science policy officials, who govern most
science museums and centres.