Skip to main content

Why Museums Matter

Yesterday afternoon, I was pleased to finish Richard Fortey's excellent book Dry Storeroom No. 1 detailing the behind-the-scenes workings of the Natural History Museum in Great Britain. Sounds like it would be a deathly dull book, doesn't it? In the deft hands of Fortey, however, nothing could be further from the truth!

Richard Fortey is just the man to pen a book on this topic; not only is he an excellent writer (Trilobite! is another good example of his prose), but he has also spent his entire career at the NHM and has the view that can only be provided by an insider such as he. Retired since 2006, Fortey was the expert on trilobites for the museum, and his exposition of the inner workings of the institution are simple amazing. He proceeds in steps through the different divisions of the museum, mingling personal reflections with stories of the many, often colorful, characters who have worked there over the years and discussions of the history and work of each department.

The picture he provides is one of an institution in flux since the Thatcher years, when it was decided that everything should be run as a business; the consequences for the Museum itself are not completely apparent yet, but some decisions were absolutely disastrous for the mission of the institution.

The common thread that runs through the book is a vigorous defense of the institution of museums. Their mission and purpose may seem strange and unnecessary to an entire class of politicians and petty bureaucrats, but it is very clear to those within the profession of science and the educated public. Museums are a place to collect and preserve knowledge of the natural world, to push the frontiers of that knowledge and act as repositories of worlds that are fast vanishing in nature. Research that seems "useless" and odd specialties can, in a moment, turn out to mean the entire world, the literal difference between life and death for millions (read the section on the screw worm, if you think I exaggerate!).

That's a lesson that matters in this country just as much as in Britain, at a time when deficit hawks are looking to cut funding in as many areas as possible. We cannot let museums fall under the ax; it would be an incredibly short-sighted mistake, one that we would have cause to regret for a century to come, if not longer.

Comments

  1. Excellent review. I loved the book too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. How about we cut social security. Those danged baby boomers who got us into this mess don't deserve a reward for their failure.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...