Chemistry Reference
In-Depth Information
Has the Science Museum changed or at least influenced people's per-
ception of chemistry? Has the low-key approach been successful where
boosterism has failed? The focus of this chapter has been on the image of
chemistry presented by museums from within. A paper on the impact of
museum galleries on the public perception of chemistry would require a
completely different methodology and additional sources of information,
such as visitor surveys, public opinion polls, and the like. Furthermore
this information would be mostly lacking for the interwar period when
museums may have had their greatest impact. Nonetheless it is possible
to make a few generalizations. Although millions of people visit science
museums, this activity is still a minority activity. According to a Euro-
barometer survey in 2002-3, only 11% of respondents in the old EU of
15 countries had visited science and technology museums in the previous
year and the figure for the new members of the EU was even lower
(Gallup 2003). Furthermore, the media is in a far stronger position to
shape people's perception of chemistry than museums. People are con-
stantly bombarded by the media through newspapers, radio, television,
and increasingly via the Internet, whereas a museum visit will last only a
few hours at most. On the basis of the experience of Oliver Sacks and the
late John Stock, I infer - and in the absence of hard evidence, it can only
be a surmise - that traditional chemistry galleries were inspirational in
the 'chemistry-set era' from 1920s to early 1960s when suitably enthused
visitors could go home and develop their new-found interest by produc-
ing exciting bangs and smells in the garden shed (Sacks 2001, Stock
2004). I also strongly suspect that the galleries appealed mainly to boys
rather than girls, and to children aged 10-14 rather than older teenagers.
It is impossible to even guess how many young visitors were stimulated
to take an interest in chemistry in this way and how long their enthusi-
asm survived on average. Given that we know the profound effect it had
on some visitors, the results for chemistry - in terms of an improved
image and recruitment to the profession - must have been generally
positive if inevitably limited in terms of the number of people thus
influenced.
Science and technology museums are going through a period of great
change. Interactivity is now central to the museum visit and this works
against chemistry which is not easy to turn into attractive interactives de-
