As many of you may know, the Mutter Museum of the College of Physicians of
Philadelphia (founded in 1849 as a Museum of Pathological Anatomy) is a
wonderful medical history museum.  Its impressive collection includes
hundreds of fluid-preserved anatomical and pathological specimens, dried
cadavers stained to highlight anatomical fatures, antique medical
instruments, reproductions of various pathologies in wax, paper mache, and
plastic, portraits, and more.  Because the collection is displayed in wood
and glass cases and isn't brightly illuminated, the museum has a unique,
almost 19th century, atmosphere.  I find it hard to describe the rich and
thought-provoking character of the museum.  For me, encountering a glass
case of 139 skulls --each labelled by some by-gone Viennese anatomist
with a terse (culturally-loaded) life summary and description-- provokes
far more thoughts about the history and nature of medicine than most
larger and better funded historical displays.  Not only does the Mutter
Museum compare favorably to more conventional history displays, but its
atmosphere and displays seem to me appropriate for the nature of the
collection.  Martin R. Lipp, M.D., in _Medical Landmarks USA_ calls it
"arguably America's finest medical pathological and historical museum" and
you won't find me disagreeing.

Although I do not fully understand the politics of the situation, there
seems to be reason for concern about the Mutter Museum's future.  Laura
Lindgren, who had directed the production of the Mutter Museum Calendars,
recently sent out a letter explaining that the calendar project had been
cancelled and enclosed an article from Philadelphia's _City Paper_ ("Not
with my Mutter You Don't:  is the Museum losing its edge?" by Margit
Detweiler, _City Paper_ July 19 - 25, 1996) which provided some background
explanation for this event.

I find the calendar's cancellation disappointing.  The award-winning
calendar included the work of many excellent photographers (such as
Rosamond Purcell and Olivia Parker) and was produced entirely on a
volunteer basis (thus earning the College an estimated $10,000/yr).  I
first learned of the museum through the calendar (which I saw mentioned in
_Whole Earth Review_) and it seems many others have as well.  The year
after the first calendar was published, museum attendence increased
three-fold.  The 1996 calendar features artfully executed photographs of
specimens from the museums collection.  Like the museum, the calendar is
quirky, beautiful, and fascinating.  I am saddened to see it go.

However, the calendar's cancellation wouldn't be significant if it didn't
signal other, more troubling, trends.  Apparently there is a new
administration at the College of Physicians of Philadelphia who feels that
the calendar "is an outdated reflection of who we are," to quote the new
Director of Public Affairs, Dick Levinson. Levinson (as quoted in the
_City Paper_ article) explains by saying "If we're going to be coming to
people and talking about [the College of Physicians] and getting them to
focus on the important things we're doing, we can't simultaneously be
involved in peddling a calendar which, to a lot of people, really smacks
of the strange and bizarre."  Since the calendar is essentially a set of
photographs of the collection, this reflects a deeply negative attitude
about the collection itself.  Levinson's implication is clear:
maintaining and displaying the Museum's collection isn't important
to the new administration.

It seems that the new administration wants to remake the College of
Physicians into a source of modern healthcare information and therefore is
trying to de-emphasize the 'dark' and unusual character of the Museum.
Levinson, whose position was created for him, and Executive Director Mark
Micozzi were both hired last fall.  Previously both had worked at the
National Museum of Health and Medicine in Washington, D.C., where Micozzi
was founding director and Levinson was PR director.  Together, they had
apparently attempted to create something some critics called a sanitized
and staid "HMO-like museum" out of what had been the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology.  In the conversion, "inanimate organs were
replaced with high-tech displays about health and nutrition."  However,
Congress failed to approve the $17 - 20 million needed for the conversion,
leading Micozzi and Levinson to move to the College of Physicians.

Micozzi and Levinson apparently further justify their efforts to change
the museums' characters by claiming that contemporary sensitivity to the
display of human remains justifies their removal.  However, the _City
Paper_ article quotes Jane Bedno, the director of the graduate program in
museum exhibits at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, who says
the display of human remains is only unacceptable in museums when it is
culturally or ethnically loaded.  I don't think this is the case with most
of the Mutter Museum's collection.  It's not like these are sacred
objects from other cultures; they're bladder stones from prominent
statesmen and antique models for teaching medicine.  Yes, there are
preserved cadavers, but remains of the anonymous sit next to those of
the rich and famous.  The squeamish may not enjoy the museum, but
no museum is for everyone.  Much of history requires a 'strong stomach'
and to make the museum "inoffensive" would be to destroy its greatness.

So far, recent changes have included the addition of the C. Everett Koop
Community Health Information Center (Koop CHIC)  and new exhibit gallery,
both adjacent to the Mutter Museum. The Koop CHIC seems to be an
underutilized, but nice community resource and has a decent library of
books, pamphlets, periodicals, and videos on health issues.  The rather
conventional "Say AHHH!" exhibit next to the Mutter Museum examined how
Americans understand their risk of disease, the steps they take to prevent
it, and the measures they believe will cure them.

Both of these new features are reasonable and potentially valuable
additions to the College of Physician's public resources.  However, I
strongly hope that these will be just that: additions to the Museum, not
replacements.  But given the obvious lack of respect and interest which
the new adminstration shows towards the Mutter Museum's collection, I am
not optimistic.

I hope that all of you who share my interest in medical and scientific
history will take the time to express concern over the changes taking
place at the Museum.  Unless we act fast, we are in danger of losing a
unique and wonderful medical history resource.  Please write to Dr. Albert
Fishman, President of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, 19 South
22nd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, USA. Marc Micozzi, the new Executive
Director, may also be reached at the same address.  Tell them you are
concerned over the recent changes at the museum.  Let them know that the
Museum and its collections are an important resource which deserves
their continuing support.

Of course, anyone in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area is urged to visit
and enjoy the Museum itself.  It is a treasure which may not always be
accessible.

Please feel free to post or distribute this note to other appropriate
forums.  Thank you.

Matt Baggott, [log in to unmask]
Research Associate, Drug Dependence Research Center,
Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute,
University of California, San Francisco