Museums, it would seem, are striding further into that murky swamp of
"contemporary history," (a genre that came into its own during the murky
period from 1914-1945). Journalists have long claimed for newspapers the
privilege of being "the rough draft of history." Is this how museums see
themselves? Or is it something more contemplative, more in the
anthropological vein, as in a sort of social fun-house mirror that does
not always reflect what the public expects to see?
        I think that the conversations on historicizing September 11th
have quite a bit to do with this thread on stem cell research. Historians,
both in academe and in the museum, have become more conscious of memory
politics and the need to begin analyzing events as "history" almost before
the events themselves have reached any kind of conclusion. Once,
historians could claim, however tongue-in-cheek, that they didn't pay
attention to anything that had happened in the last twenty-five years. It
wasn't history yet, you see.
        Is it because we have more sophisticated primary sources -
audio-visual, digital - because we can rewind and repeat the "past," or
call up the same articles again online, or instantly access thousands of
relevant sources via internet and database, that we feel secure in letting
"history" and "historical analysis" creep into moments that have only just
ceased to be the present?
        I do not intend to put down modern methods of analysis, but truly
wondered what museum professionals felt about the idea of presenting
contemporary issues in the context of a history museum. I think that the
same question applies to a science museum, which after all is to some
extent dealing with the history of science, in addition to the mechanics
of how scientists think and experiment.
        Science museums and history museums may seem to differ at face
value, in that history museums focus on interpreting events while science
museums present facts about the world around us. However, the presentation
of those facts, as any scientists will say, is definitely a matter of
interpretation. And in a situation in which the exhibit subject is one of
significant debate, be it the history of Roe vs. Wade or the scientific
applications of stem cell research, both museums have similar choices to
make concerning interpretation, analysis, and presentation.


Leigh T. Denault
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
___________________________________________________________________________

On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, martin weiss wrote:

>         From my perspective the issue is very relevant and comes to
> the issue of how does a science museum deal with the overlap of two
> very different belief systems-science and religion. Science, as
> practiced today, is a way of looking at the world around us by
> testing questions (hypotheses) and formulating more questions based
> on the answers we receive. In this way we derive a clearer and
> clearer understanding of  the world around us.  Religious
> understanding of the world is based upon faith and is not testable as
> science is (nor is testing of  belief based on faith encouraged).
>
>         The problem for science museums is how do you present the
> science, as it is understood today and as scientists are pursuing
> questions like therapeutic cloning to derive stem cells (no reputable
> scientists, that I am aware of is pursuing reproductive cloning). It
> is in the new;it may have enormous potential for medical therapies
> and an informed public is in a far better position to understand
> decisions that will be made that will potentially effect their lives.
> In addition, there are visitors to science museums who are very
> interested in learning about issues like therapeutic cloning and
> evolution two issues that clash on the science and faith. I cannot
> speak for other museums but we plan to approach these on the
> scientific issues. I'd like to do an exhibition on the difference
> between scientific beliefs and faith based beliefs but I am not sure
> how to do it.
>
>         This is an important issue and should be discussed but on the
> issues of how to develop programs and exhibitions on controversial
> issues. Certainly many of you have faced this doing programs and
> exhibitions about AIDS and its effects on the artistic community.
>
>         It is late after a long day and I hope I've been cogent.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Martin
> --
> Martin Weiss, Ph.D.
> Director of Science
> New York Hall of Science
> 47-01 111 th Street
> Queens, New York 11368
> +1 718 699 0005 x 356 phone
> +1 718 699 1341 facsimile
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.nyhallsci.org
>
> =========================================================
> Important Subscriber Information:
>
> The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
>
> If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
>

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).