SCIENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE

Terri Paik
October 1997
AMST 205-0201

Home

Looking Ahead
General evaluation
The exhibit as a cultural artifact

---

Overview

Science in American Life explores the developments in science during the 20th century that have changed and challenged American society. I first did a cursory walk-through for this exhibit and "The Information Age" but I chose this one because there were several things here that caught my eye and made me stop to look. These were: the "movie" in Science for Progress, the Hiroshima wall, er, the birth control section, and the Superconducting Supercollider cartoon. I also liked the way the exhibit was composed of discrete sections. The section divisions were chronological and thematic, highlighting the main focus of American science during each time period. There was a linear path from start to finish. None of the sections was too long and each had a distinct flavor, so the entire exhibit held my interest. The six sections are listed above in the Table of Contents; each will be reviewed in detail below.

---

Laboratory Science Comes to America, 1876-1920

This section featured a few early laboratory scientists and described some of their research and inventions. A 19th century environment was recreated by dim lighting and using "antique" colors - yellow, brown, and black. The walls were covered with black and white pictures of 19th century people or cities, with displays protruding from the walls. The curatorial team took great pains to construct a laboratory with two mannikin scientists talking to each other, but frankly their conversation was too boring and many visitors just strolled by. (Marcel Winokur, on the other hand, mentioned this as one of the few interesting parts of the exhibit! Christie Redman also thought it was effective.) Some of the scientists featured were C. F. Chandler, Ellen S. Richards, and H. W. Wiley. I had not heard of any of these scientists and so the displays did not capture my attention. I did not read the panel on Ellen S. Richards, but I read Cynthia Friend (a present-day scientist)'s comment about her. Because they erected a life-size cardboard picture of Cynthia Friend and stood her next to the Ellen S. Richards display, I assumed that the picture must be Ellen S. Richards, and then I thought, "Wait a minute. But she couldn't have looked so modern," which is why I ended up reading the Cynthia Friend panel instead of the Ellen S. Richards panel. Life-size pictures of present-day scientists are scattered throughout the exhibit and next to the picture, there is a quote from the scientist commenting on why that particular scientist or invention is significant to them. In this case, the life-size picture was misleading and drew attention away from the intended subject. (It seems that Harmony Loube also mistook the cardboard picture for Ellen S. Richards.) "Measuring Minds" was a panel about how scientists thought that head shape indicated intelligence. This was an interesting subject, but the display was not appealing - too much text. In general, the artistry was good, but the content was not presented effectively. Since the section did not involve any major controversies but simply introduced the visitor to science in America, there was no great loss. However, it still seemed like a waste of a section.

---

Science for Progress, 1920-1940

This period focused on the increasing prominence of science in American culture and society. Buried in laboratories until World War I, science started to branch out into people's lives during the 'Roaring Twenties'. Perhaps to illustrate a change of era, this section and its successors had a modern look that set off Laboratory Science Comes to America from the rest of the exhibit. A circular "movie theatre" stood in the middle, and display cases were embedded in the walls surrounding it. Each display case featured a different topic: the Scopes trial, science toys for children, DuPont, nylon, and the World Fair.

As noted in my introduction, I enjoyed watching the "movie" (~12 minutes long). The movie covered the Scopes trial, but it was mostly about the commercialization of science and how it affected the American economy through the Great Depression. The advertisement of the air-conditioned suit was very funny. One thing I found odd though, was a short clip near the end of the movie, showing a 1960's motorway and noting "safety at high speeds." This segment was very out of place because just before and after it, they were talking about the World Fair and the late 1930's. The 1960's clip does not belong in the movie nor in the section.

The Scopes trial was given the most ink as it was the main scientific controversy of the time period. The displays did a good job of illustrating the battle between science and religion, and raised the question of how much authority science should wield. However, there seemed to be a bias in the wording. The display panel for the Scopes trial read, "Protestant fundamentalists attacked what they saw as an encroachment of science into the realm of divine truth as revealed in the Bible. However, scientists agreed...." "Attacked" is a negative word; it implies barbarism. And "what they saw as" gives the impression that the fundamentalists were alone in their skewed point of view. Also, in discussing the Scopes trial, the movie says that "the real issue was the right to teach whatever science had found to be true" (Italics added). As someone who believes in Adam and Eve, I was disturbed by this statement. Yes, evolution may be widely accepted in scientific circles but it is still a theory and was much more so in the 1920's. I fully agree with Daphne Pee's insightful comment about science becoming a religion, and people having blind faith in whatever science claimed. Although Daphne states that this changed in the Science in the Public Eye era, I think that when it comes to evolution, public attitude has not changed. I think it takes a lot more faith to believe that the universe, our planet, and the human body arose from billions of years of random accidents than to believe that a superintelligent being designed and created us. But I digress. Anyhow, "truth" is a dangerous term in science and it is presumptuous to use it so freely, especially when a large percentage of visitors may disagree.

---

Mobilizing Science for War, 1940-1960

Central to this period was, of course, the atomic bomb: development of the bomb, the dropping on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the ensuing nuclear arms race. The first "room" was decorated as a military research base by using gray brick walls, plain concrete, yellow and black striped panels, and WW2 posters hanging from the ceiling. A hands-on cyclotron model supposedly demonstrated how to smash an atom, but no matter how hard I turned the crank, I did not see the atom. There was also a large display on atom smashing, which I skipped over after trying the cyclotron model. Off to one side, there was a pick-up-the-receiver-and-listen type presentation on "Science Recruits Women and Minorities" but it did not look particularly interesting or relevant to the section so I skipped that also. Although the first room had many models and displays, none of them were very captivating; the lack of a clear path probably contributed to this. Also, they could have used better labeling; I found myself scanning around for labels.

Dividing the first room from the second room was a prominent wall, and mounted on that wall was perhaps the climax of the entire exhibit: the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The wall was a stark gray, bearing only a quote by a Hiroshima survivor and five small photographs incased in the wall. The simplicity was gripping. Every visitor stopped to walk up to the wall, look at the photographs, and read the captions. Two of the photographs I will remember for a long time. One was of a woman with the pattern of the dress she was wearing burned into her back. Another was a dark shadow on the ground where a person was incinerated instantly. I sensed a definite negativity in the portrayal of the bombing. A small panel on the side, after noting that the bombing decision was controversial, stated, "These attacks...revealed to the world the horrors of nuclear warfare." There was no mention of Pearl Harbor, no attempt to justify.

The second room dealt was the aftermath of the bombing - the nuclear arms race, nuclear testing, and concern for public safety. Somehow, after the Hiroshima panel, I did not feel like reading all this. However, there was an interesting video on the Nevada bomb testing that I had not known about before. After watching a several minutes of the video, I moved on to the next section.

---

Better Than Nature, 1950-1970

This was a fun, interesting section about how science has tried to make improvements on mother nature, particularly in the domestic sector. This theme was illustrated by structuring the displays around the model of a house. On one side, we saw a cutaway of a 1950's kitchen and family room, with a panel on the boom of plastic products. A tool shed and stone fence stood beside the house, displaying lawn tools and describing new technologies in lawn care. Behind the house was a miniature back yard with a rosebush, a big rock, and green carpeting. The display on pesticides here included an interesting video on the pro-pesticide and anti-pesticide debate at the time. The "house" design was an excellent idea. It complemented the content, and it was also visually interesting and informative in its own right. A large part of the section was devoted to the pill. The history, technology, and social repercussions of the pill were thoroughly covered. I appreciated the way they presented the religious point of view in discussing the pill versus the Catholic church. It was much more courteous than the Scopes trial discussion. (I suppose there are more Catholics than Protestant fundamentalists.)

The only complaint I had about this section was the title. "Better than nature"? It bothered me as soon as I saw it. It seemed to imply that the pill, plastic, and pesticides have improved on nature. Whether these scientific discoveries have truly improved on nature is an individual judgment. Can man produce anything better than nature? I tend to be somewhat skeptical of these solution-to-all-our-problems inventions. As Sting put it, "Never saw no miracle of science that didn't go from a blessing to a curse." The panels did present opposing points of view and the harmful effects of some of the inventions. So the curatorial team may not have meant to declare that the the inventions were better than nature. However, the title should reflect this. They could at least have added a question mark ("Better Than Nature?").

---

Science in the Public Eye, 1970-present

The theme of this section was science's increasing visibility and public reaction to it. As the time period indicates, this section and Looking Ahead sported a contemporary look. A series of short panels featured the interaction between science and the public during the 70's and 80's. However, the panels were a bit of a hodge-podge and if it were not for the cool layout, I probably would have passed it by. It would have been nicer if it was apparent how they all related to each other. (It took me a while to come up with that umbrella phrase for what the panels were talking about.) Topics discussed in greater detail included the debate over genetic engineering / recombinant DNA research and the ozone layer and the CFC problem. The Superconducting Supercollider cartoon that I mentioned in the overview was also in this section. Any visitor who missed this cartoon should go back to the exhibit just to see this. I did not understand what the supercollider was about and I had never heard of it, but the cartoon made me laugh out loud. The ozone display was effective although it was a familiar topic because it was sculpted around a piece of Antarctica with life-size scientist mannikins standing on fake snow. The displays showed how CFC's destroy ozone molecules, but it also dealt with the human obstacles that make new policies difficult to enforce. The other thing I liked about this section was the nice, clear labeling.

---

Looking Ahead

This section brought the visitor "back home." In contrast with the rest of the exhibit, this area had a regular tiled ceiling and fluorescent lights, signaling the end of our short travel through time. A "hallway" led out of the exhibit, with displays along both walls. The focus of this section was biotechnology and the environment, and it urged the visitor to stop, think, and act. Three of the panels presented current issues in the field of biotechnology and answered the questions, "What can you do?", "Is it safe?", and "Is it right?" Perhaps because I was tired out by this point, I did not find this section very captivating, but the other visitors seemed to enjoy it. Two TV screens were each showing a different video, but they were right next to each other and the narrators for both were shouting. Probably headsets would be a better idea. I tried playing the DNA "game" near the exit but it just seemed like a giant xylophone without a hammer. Also, I started to fill out the feedback questionnaire screen at the end but I thought too long on a question and all of a sudden it returned to, "Touch the screen to begin." Questionnaires like these should prompt, "Would you like more time?" before abandoning the user.

---

General evaluation: somewhere between Very Good and Excellent
(When I walked out of the exhibit, I gave it an Excellent, but after writing this paper, I've lowered it to Very Good.)

Overall, the exhibit was very well done. (I am not sure if I enjoyed it more because of this assignment; if I was not writing a 4-7 page paper on it, I would have breezed through it and missed a lot of details.) The section divisions were well chosen, and for the most part, each centered around a distinct theme. The artistry and the mix of different types of media - text, artifacts, pictures, video, 3D models - made it visually appealing. I especially liked how it highlighted a couple of key issues from each time period and elaborated on those instead of trying to include everything. There were some issues that were not mentioned. But after I left, I remembered what I saw. Another reason why the exhibit was effective was that it made you think. It did not just present information. In a subtle way, it asked you for your opinion.

Christie, Kristi, Harmony, and Liana also had high opinions of the exhibit. I am not sure why Marcel and Daphne felt that the exhibit in general was a failure. Marcel mentioned that some displays were boring. Yes, not all of the displays intrigued me, but a museum exhibit can not and should not make all of its contents appeal to every visitor. As shown in the Laboratory Science Comes to America subheading, what bores one person to tears may fascinate others. Daphne thought that the exhibit shied away from controversial issues and was just a nostalgic, romantic trip down memory lane. This puzzles me because I feel that the exhibit was clearly the opposite. Daphne and I have debated this at length and it seems that we won't reach an agreement anytime soon.

The exhibit advocates responsible science. The exhibit was not about celebrating science's great accomplishments. Every main topic in the exhibit involved a controversy or a failing of science: the Scopes trial, the atomic bomb, birth control, pesticides, CFC's, genetic engineering. The underlying message is that we need to balance the benefits with the risks, and consider the social/ethical issues that accompany the scientific advancements that we make.

My main suggestion to the curators is to watch for value judgments. The three examples I noted were in the Scopes trial, the Hiroshima bombing, and the "Better Than Nature" title. While these do help to stimulate visitors to form their own opinions, they can be offensive to some. The curators should try to represent both sides of a controversy in a respectful way. My second overall suggestion is to improve the interactive displays. There are not many of them, and this is appropriate to the content of the exhibit, but the ones that were there did not seem to work. The three that I remember, the cyclotron model, the DNA game, and the feedback screen, were all disappointing. For more specific suggestions, see the individual subheadings.

---

The exhibit as a cultural artifact

Science in American Life reflects American culture in three ways. First, it tries to be politically correct. The orientation area displayed all the life-size cardboard scientists, and I noticed that they made sure to represent all ethnicities and genders evenly, when actually the science fields are still majority male and ethnically uneven. Second, it tells us that Americans think about and care about ethical and moral issues, not just the technological advancements and how cool they are. Third, it shows us that most Americans have a short attention span with text and need pictures and video to maintain interest. This illustrates the effect of TV and the computer on our generation.

---

Chimpanzee photograph by Bill and Carol Lofton. http://www.selu.com/~bio/PrimateGallery/new/Lofton/