science museums and the science museum

SCIENCE MUSEUMS AND THE SCIENCE MUSEUMScience for the nation: perspectives on the history of the Science Museum by Peter J. T.MorrisReview by: Robert G. W. AndersonNotes and Records of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 64, No. 4 (20 December 2010), pp. 471-476Published by: The Royal SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25802131 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 16:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Royal Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Notes and Records ofthe Royal Society of London.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:09:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rsl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25802131?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


NOTES & RECORDS Notes Rec. R. Soc. (2010) 64, 471-476

doi:10.1098/rsnr.2010.0080 Published online 29 September 2010

-OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

ESSAY REVIEW

SCIENCE MUSEUMS AND THE SCIENCE MUSEUM

by

Robert G. W. Anderson*

Clare Hall, Herschel Road, Cambridge CB3 9AL, UK

Peter J. T. Morris (editor), Science for the nation: perspectives on the history of the Science Museum. Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Pp. xxii + 350, ?65.00 (hardback).

ISBN 978-0-230-23009-5.

Shortly after its foundation 350 years ago, the Royal Society was in the process of creating a

collection, a fact mentioned by Thomas Sprat in 1667. Four years later, Nehemiah Grew

published his Mus&um Regalis Societas. Or, a Catalogue and Description of the Natural and Artificial Rarities belonging to the Royal Society and Preserved at Gresham College. The specimens described as 'Natural Rarities' were essentially a natural history museum, and it would be reasonable to consider that the smaller section of 'Artificial Rarities',

physical objects used in the pursuit of scientific knowledge (including 'A Reflecting Telescope. Contrived by Mr. Isaac Newton'), formed the contents of England's first science museum. It is true that there had been earlier, more private, collections that included 'scientific' specimens, but they were more in the nature of cabinets of curiosities. The eclectic accumulation of the John Tradescants, father and son, popularly known as the 'Ark of Lambeth', had been created from the early seventeenth century. After it was acquired by Elias Ashmole, the University of Oxford provided it with a

specially constructed building.1 Opening in Broad Street in 1683, it became the first true

public museum in the country, perhaps even the world. The Royal Society's collection did not thrive, being described in 1710 by a passing

German traveller, perhaps with some exaggeration, as covered with dust, filth and coal smoke. Most of the items were passed over to the British Museum in 1781. These were absorbed into the morass of Hans Sloane's collection2 and their original institutional association was lost. Probably few of them now survive in the successor collections at

Bloomsbury and South Kensington. Although the Museum's own collection contained several scientific instruments (which Sloane had listed separately as a sub-category, the

unique late-thirteenth century Sloane Astrolabe being among them3), this and associated

material could scarcely be considered as comprising an identifiable science museum

within the totality of the collection. Rather, the instruments were regarded as antiquities that had particular mathematical connotations. On mainland Europe, the Conservatoire des

Arts et Metiers in Paris, established in 1794, was, in part, intended to be a repository for new and useful machines, to be demonstrated to interested artisans and others. Historical

*rgwa2@ cam.ac.uk

471 This journal is ? 2010 The Royal Society



472 R. G. W. Anderson

items were added, and though the overall collection might be considered to be the first public science museum, its original purpose was rather different from any current definition of what a science museum is. This raises the question of how a science museum might be defined.

The very word 'museum' has been used in a variety of ways. The Deutsches Museum in

Munich, founded in 1903, is held by many to be the archetypical museum of science, but

from 1776 there was a periodical of that same name published at Leipzig, and a good number of other journals were published in the nineteenth century that bore the name

'museum', meaning an accumulation of published facts rather than displayed artefacts.

Today the picture is almost as confusing. Some bodies call themselves museums that bear

little or no relationship to the generally accepted usage of that term, whereas some true

museums make every effort to avoid the word in their titles, believing it to have fuddy

duddy implications. Starting in around the 1960s and 1970s, significant numbers of

science centres with purpose-built interactive demonstrations were created, and although devoid of historical objects they sometimes called themselves museums, confusing the

picture even further. There can be little doubt that the precursor of many of the current science and decorative

art museums around the world was the South Kensington Museum, initially a disparate group of collections that was concentrated in a new (and much reviled) prefabricated building to the west of central London in 1857. This institution, formed under the aegis of a new

government department, came about as the direct result of the Great Exhibition, which had been promoted by the Prince Consort in 1851. The Exhibition made a significant

profit, and money was used to purchase the South Kensington Estate, with the ambition to

turn it into London's cultural quarter (it was referred to by some as 'Albertopolis').4 Almost from the beginning, the collection was organized in two sections, the Art Division

and the Science Division, headed initially by Henry Cole and Lyon Playfair, respectively. The arts side was relatively well funded, and a succession of new buildings were

provided, with Aston Webb's distinctive enfolding structure being completed in 1906. By contrast, little encouragement was given to build up the science collections, and the minimum possible was offered for their accommodation. (As late as 1960, a building erected for a temporary exhibition in 1871 was still being used as a public gallery for the aircraft collection.) Strenuous efforts had earlier been made by some of the most senior of British scientists to get a public museum started, including their backing of a huge temporary exhibition in 1876, the Special Loan Collection of Scientific Instruments.

William Spottiswood, a future President of the Royal Society, declared in his opening address of a series of associated lectures, 'If the collection... is an evidence of the valuable relics ... of the great men who have passed away ... how much the preservation of such objects would be promoted by the establishment of a museum.'5 There followed a

debate about what kind of museum was the more desirable?should it be a museum of science history, or a museum that presented contemporary scientific principles for public understanding? Disputation was followed by prevarication. Eventually this lengthy process led to the commissioning of a report on the future of the museum by the Board of Education. This was chaired by Sir Hugh Bell, a steel magnate, and published in 1911 and 1912. In the event, the recommendations did not offer a very clear way forward?the museum should be multifunctional, offering all things to all people?but the report did at last lead to the construction of a building. World War I was responsible for further delays to the first phase, and it was not until 1928 that this part was officially opened, amounting to only one-third of the space that Bell said was needed. The second part was not



Essay Review 473

completed until 1960, and the final phase was opened in 2000, having been financed by the

Heritage Lottery Fund and Wellcome Trust rather than by direct government funding. The contrast in the rate at which the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Science Museum

buildings were provided is a telling commentary on British cultural attitudes. The story of the lengthy gestation of the Science Museum is fascinating, if distressing. It

has also taken a long time for any substantial account of its history to provide the details; the volume under review is the first full-length book on the topic.6 There have been three earlier histories. The first was a brief account that appeared in 1951 to accompany the Science Museum's own rather muted celebration of the centenary of the Great Exhibition.7 Another short history was published in 1957 to mark the centenary of the setting-up of the South Kensington Museum.8 In the third, the former director of the Science Museum,

David Follett, wrote an account of the museum under the directorship of Sir Henry Lyons (1920-33).9 Although this has its points of interest, it is not the critical view that

museum historians might have wished for. So it is difficult to agree with the editor of Science for the nation when he writes that these three can be considered to be 'significant histories'.10 Comparisons with the substantial monographs written of other British national museums show how poorly the Science Museum has been served up to now.11 Even with this new volume, the title makes it clear that we are only being offered

'perspectives'. The work has been published for what the Science Museum treated as its

centenary year, 2009. This celebrated its formal independence from the South Kensington Museum (or, to be more accurate, the Victoria and Albert Museum; the name had been

adopted for both parts of the organization in 1899, even though the title 'Science Museum' had occasionally been used earlier). For the first time, in 1909, staff, buildings and collections officially became a separate institution.

Science for the nation is a multi-authored work consisting of an introduction, followed by 13 chapters written by 11 authors, and completed by what is called an 'afterword'. The contributors are mainly a mixture of long-serving staff from the Science Museum and

young outside scholars who have recently been researching the public presentation of science and technology through the medium of exhibitions. Although a centenary work, there is very little material that considers the most recent, post-Millennium, decade, a

particularly interesting and turbulent period when significant changes in the organization were being brought about. However, there is a good deal of material relating to the pre 1909 proto-museum, providing useful context for what follows. The first chapter, on the

agonizing start that the museum faced, is well related by Robert Bud. Not every influential figure wanted it to flourish. One anti-hero was the Head of the Office of

Works, Algernon Mitford, who saw no need for a science museum. He insisted on writing a minority report in which he suggested that much of the existing collection should be sent away on loan, with the proposed museum site being handed over to the National

Portrait Gallery. In contrast, the key role played by a hitherto unsung hero, Robert

Morant, Permanent Secretary to the Board of Education, has been identified. The decision to build a museum was ultimately taken, although the wartime period, 1914-18, slowed

everything down. After hostilities and the eventual provision of accommodation, the

Science Museum took up the attitude of being a 'peace museum', in sharp contrast with

the Imperial War Museum, which had just been founded. The Science Museum was

closed for much of the period of World War II, and much of the collection was sent out

to various safer locations to avoid destruction. However, one of the few curators

remaining, Bernard Davy, established a temporary exhibition, 'Aircraft in peace and war'.




This seems to have been his own initiative. Then came the period from 1950 to 1983, the latter year being that when the Science Museum was moved out of the civil service (not

initially to the liking of the director, Dame Margaret Weston). This change was in line with Mrs Thatcher's policy of reducing the number of public servants; a Board of Trustees was established for the first time. The story of the contrasting directorships of Frank Sherwood Taylor (the most recent scholar-director of the Museum, who died in

post in 1956) and Terence Morrison-Scott (a powerful Old Etonian, a fact not irrelevant to his gaining the post) is nicely told. The museum took on permanent loan the huge

Wellcome history of medicine collection in 1976, and expanded beyond its South

Kensington base?to York, with the National Railway Museum opening in 1975, and to

Bradford, with the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television opening in 1983. These changes put great pressure on the institution, during a period that coincided

with a tightening of government funding and a consequential reduction in staffing. The

period 1980-2000 is largely concerned with several cultural changes, some of these

being implemented after reports commissioned from external consultants (a tool that was

increasingly coming into favour). The curatorial power of the Museum was considerably weakened in this period, and many of the discipline-based galleries were dismantled. It is difficult to tell quite where the sympathies of the author, Tim Boon, lie.

After these chronologies, further chapters pick up themes. The Science Museum Library has had a rather sad history, at one stage being considered as a national science library, then

gradually being reduced in size and scope. Its independence and very existence were threatened by its landlord, Imperial College, and it is remarkable that the author does not

make reference to the crisis of 2005, when the museum director announced that the book collection would be dispersed. Concern at this point became a public issue, the chairman of the Board of Trustees having to make a statement in the House of Lords. Ultimately the decision was reversed, although most of the stock is now housed at the relatively inaccessible facility at Wroughton in Wiltshire.

In 1920 the director, Francis Ogilvie, wrote a bold memo: 'Archaeology, Fine Arts, The Industrial Arts and Natural History are all housed in palaces. Physical and Mechanical Science and the applications of science in industry are still in the wilderness.'12 The story of the struggle to develop the museum buildings is taken up by David Rooney. Wfien accommodation was materializing, there were competing claims for it. One particular curator, W. T. O'Dea, here much lauded, helped the museum lose the argument that a

planetarium should be installed, perhaps because his real aim was to procure space at the top of the building to display the aircraft under his charge. Andrew Nahum continues consideration of O'Dea's influence in 'Exhibiting science', discussing the installation of the

Agriculture Gallery of 1951 (still substantially in place) and pointing out how O'Dea understood the importance of high-quality design, including lighting. The Children's Gallery was innovative, being set up from 1931. Though it was a first of its particular nature, it needs to be pointed out that Sir Jonathan Hutchinson's Educational Museum at Haslemere can be traced back to 1888. A surprising function of the Children's Gallery (a key piece of museum history removed in 1995) was that it was intended to keep children out of the other

parts of the museum. A stern notice (date not provided) stated 'BOYS, in particular, ARE WARNED that noisy behaviour, hustling and mere playing with objects intended for study will not be permitted.' Temporary exhibitions are dealt with by Peter Morris, and a list of them, from 1912 to 1983, is offered as an appendix (why this listing should stop 27 years ago is unclear). Discussion is limited to those that dealt with a specific technological change



Essay Review 475

or challenge to British society, and is limited to eight examples (out of 188) held between 1935 and 1980. Perhaps the most fascinating aspect is that in early days it was forbidden to identify sponsors and providers of exhibits. Today, museums can be only too anxious to promote the names and interests of their benefactors. It is a pity that this chapter does not provide a wider overview, and up to the present day, because it is likely that recent changes in exhibition policy in the Science Museum would be revealing. Next comes collecting, again without an overview but concentrating on three periods when acquisition was at a high level. It would be of great interest to know why at times collecting was curtailed, and what the

present position is on collecting: how can selections be made from the huge quantity of material available allowing the science, technology and medicine of today to be represented to future generations? The topic of John Liffen's chapter, object storage, might be thought unexciting. In fact, it is one of the most successful and enlightening in the volume, perhaps because it is written by one who has had to agonize over the practicalities of the subject for much of a long career. Finally, the international scene is considered, with material

concerning science museums in Germany, the USA and the UK. Tom Scheinfeld's

conclusion, that these museums have been 'at once highly competitive, consistently collaborative and tremendously productive', might be an upbeat way to end a chapter, but one must ask 'compared with what?' The most fruitful connections are probably made by personal initiatives rather than by institutionally developed schemes. International contacts are frequently created and maintained at meetings of scholarly societies whose members derive from a variety of occupations, an aspect left unconsidered here.

If pressed, it is unlikely that many science museums would agree that they have had a

clear agenda lasting over several generations of staffing. Recently, managerial cultures have frequently been adopted, with mission statements being produced, staff structures

devised, and performance indicators identified. As soon as a new regime takes over,

everything is torn up and a new start made. The Science Museum has never been quite certain of its role, and this is reflected in many places in Science for the nation. Uncertainties are felt by most other museum types but not usually to the same extent. One of the things that is different about science museums is that they do not have

professional outsiders making demands and proffering guidance to the same extent as others. National galleries are put under pressure by art historians, natural history museums

by taxonomists, antiquities museums by archaeologists, and so on. History of science scholars have rarely interacted in the same way, and science museum curators sometimes feel detached from the outside academic world.13 The Science Museum has yet to

develop a research approach equivalent to those adopted by other types of museum.14

Although the work of a few curators is respected in the academic world, this scarcely justifies the remark, 'the Science Museum maintains a vibrant programme of scholarship in history of science, technology and medicine.'15

Publication of Science for the nation is certainly a worthwhile addition to the small corpus of histories of science museums. Some of the authors have thoroughly trawled the archives,

fishing out a good deal of new material. The tone is generally upbeat rather than critical, and some of the more contentious issues, such as the attack made by the Radical Science

Collective over the role of sponsorship in 198416 and arguments over the application of

museum charges for admission in 1986, have been avoided. The book's 'afterword' is the

text of a speech by the Science Museum's director at a celebration and fundraising dinner

held on 11 June 2009, with talk of 'our journey to be the best place in the world to enjoy science'. An unfortunate accompanying illustration shows Peter Mandelson, at the time




First Secretary of State, looking slightly bemused at the controls of 'Rocket'! Finally, it must

be said that errors and inconsistencies abound in the book, which shows every sign of

over-hasty production.

Notes

1 The building, now known as the Old Ashmolean, is still used as a museum, although the

Museum of the History of Science, which now occupies it, was not instituted until the early twentieth century.

2 Sloane's collection became the principal basis of the British Museum, when it was founded after

the death of Sloane in 1753. He had been President of the Royal Society, succeeding Newton, from 1727 to 1741.

3 Probably of English design or origin. (Sloane 54.) 4 Hermione Hobhouse, The Crystal Palace and the Great Exhibition: art, science and productive

industry. A history of the Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 (Athlone Press, London, 2002).

5 South Kensington Museum, Conferences held in Connection with the Special Loan Collection of

Scientific Apparatus. Physics and Mechanics (Chapman & Hall, London, 1876), p. 5.

6 R. G. W Anderson, 'The need for a history of science museums', Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 30,

493-499 (1999). 7 Much focus at the time was on the Festival of Britain, which included the Science Exhibition, the

entrance to which was jammed right up against the Science Museum's building. The organizers of

the Exhibition of Science wanted to have nothing to do with the museum, which was considered too traditional in its approach. In the event, the attendance at the Exhibition of Science was

disappointing, and it was shut in the evenings instead of staying open, the original intention. See

R. G. W. Anderson, 'Circa 1851: the Festival of Britain, the Exhibition of Science, and the

Science Museum', in Chymica acta (ed. R. G. W. Anderson, Peter J. T. Morris and

D. A. Robinson), pp. 107-123 (Jeremy Mills Publishing, Huddersfield, 2007). 8 The Science Museum: the first hundred years (HMSO, London, 1957). 9 David Follett, The rise of the Science Museum under Henry Lyons (Science Museum, London,

1978). 10 Peter J. T. Morris, Science for the nation: perspectives on the history of the Science Museum

(Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2010), p. 1.

11 For example, see William T. Stearn, The Natural History Museum at South Kensington

(Heinemann, London, 1981); P. R. Harris, A history of the British Museum Library 1753

1973 (British Library, London, 1998); Anthony Burton, Vision and accident: the story of the Victoria & Albert Museum (V&A Publications, London, 1999); David M. Wilson, The British Museum, a history (British Museum Press, London, 2002).

12 Morris, op. cit. (note 10), p. 159.

13 Robert Anderson, 'Research in and out of museums: do minds meet?', in Research and

Museums. Proceedings of an International Symposium in Stockholm, 22-25 May 2007 (ed. Gorel Cavalli-Bjorkman and Svante Lindquist), pp. 11-25 (Nationalmuseum and Nobel

Museum, Stockholm, 2008). 14 Robert Fox, 'Research and curatorship in the National Science Museum: a reflection on threats

and opportunities', in Impact of science on society, vol. 159, pp. 260-271 (UNESCO, Paris,

1990). 15 Morris, op. cit. (note 10), p. 51. The list of Science Museum publications currently advertised as

being available offers little support for the comment quoted here.

16 Les Levidow and Bob Young, 'Exhibiting nuclear power: the Science Museum cover-up', in

Radical Science 14. No clear reason: nuclear power politics (ed. Radical Science Collective),

pp. 53-79 (Free Association Books, London, 1984).



science museums and the science museum

Documents