Timely Reflections on Science Museums

Editor,

Fred's essay about the politics and perils of science museums was on target (Fred Schueler, Thoughts About Amateur Science in a Museum Setting, The Citizen Scientist, 03 August 2007).

A few years back, I was a regular volunteer at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, widely (and justifiably) considered one of the world's greatest science museums. While its status makes it somewhat resistant to the pressures facing smaller, less famous institutions, there were constant compromises nonetheless. By far the biggest problem--even worse than the entrenched teaching philosophies Fred cites-- is the relentless drive for attendance. Admission charges are the biggest source of support for many museums, but even those that have rich donors (or receive substantial government funding) nonetheless have to demonstrate their relevance, and the only way they know how to do that is with attendance figures. The upshot is that the boards of these places are obsessed with visitor numbers, and much less interested in what they see as arcane debates about scientific philosophy.

This is why modern science museums often seem more like theme parks than educational institutions. An IMAX movie about extreme sports, a robotic dinosaur on a treadmill, or a room full of virtual reality games may have little to do with the scientific method, but they sure do draw crowds. The only way to bring real citizen science into this type of venue is to make sure that it increases--or at least doesn't hurt - the gate numbers. If anyone can do that, it's Shawn Carlson, and I'm looking forward to seeing how his new job goes.

Alan Dove, Ph.D.
http://dovdox.com

Thanks very much, Alan. Readers, Shawn's new science center position, Alan's letter and Fred's essay are sending a message. Science centers, science museums and museums having science sections are sprinkled around the world. We can all have an impact by visiting, supporting and encouraging them. We can also seek to establish ties with those that are interested. Please send your personal experiences to Backscatter (type Backscatter in the subject line) and the SAS Forum. Editor.

Remembering Operation Moonwatch

Dear Editor,

I have been involved in trying to put together the pieces of a 50-year old puzzle when I was struck by a comment from the Sputnik era (Forrest M. Mims III, A Major International Science Anniversary, The Citizen Scientist, 03 August 2007).

To make the point short without being verbose, Harvard College Observatory wanted spotters for the Vanguard satellite program. The scientists wanted somebody who would do the job for free and the love of doing it. Certain individuals at Harvard College Observatory believed that amateurs would not make a good base, but Fred Whipple triumphed when all the amateur telescope makers and amateur astronomers who were already looking at the sky demonstrated they could indeed do a good job. When they were put to the test observing the first satellites from around the world, incoming data was perfect and the observations were better than the scientists could have ever done. No money was spent on all that labor except for the scopes that were manufactured and used by the Moonwatch teams. One of our deceased members once said, "We beat them hundreds to one."

As Always,

Anna Hillier

Anna and readers, you can read more about the enormously successful Operation Moonwatch here. Editor.

A 12-Year Old Forecast About SAS

Editor,

I came across a book in a used book store called Beginner's Guide to the Sun by Peter Taylor and Nancy Hendrickson (Kalmbach Books, 1995). To my surprise, the last six lines on the last page (157) are these:

"Last but not least, one association--the Society for Amateur Scientists (SAS)--exists for the express purpose of enabling amateur scientists and astronomers to work directly with professionals in bonafide research projects. The SAS participates in activities in a number of different scientific fields, gathering and analyzing data,and publishing results in various journals. Serious amateur scientists are urged to contact the SAS office for further details."

As Always Anna Hillier

Anna, great letter. Much has happened since this notice appeared, including the publication in peer-reviewed journals of papers by some SAS members. Editor.

A Final Letter on the Final Theory

Editor,

Here is what I had to say elsewhere about the book discussed by Dolores Bentham in Backscatter (The Final Theory, The Final Theory, Rethinking our Scientific Legacy):

"The sample chapter is curious, takes forever to say anything then when it does say something it confuses force with work/energy and/or power.

"Also it seeks to refute Newtonian gravity by claiming that it violates the principle of conservation of energy (same mistake as above really), but as conservation of energy in this case is a consequence of Newtonian mechanics, you would have thought the Newton might have noticed."

From the sample chapter I would conclude that the author has a poor grasp of the subject matter of mechanics, and so we should hope for little when he writes about its applications. (But then, as he says, "The best selling book our scientist never read. Find out why!")

Ron Larham

Letters to "Backscatter" are welcome. Important: It's very important to use a meaningful subject line! E-mails with subject lines that read, "Hi," "Hello," "Question," "A comment," and so forth are routinely deleted as spam or junk mail. Please include both your first and last name and the author and full title of any article(s) from THE CITIZEN SCIENTIST cited in your letter. We'll add the hyperlink. Letters are subject to light editing to correct punctuation, spelling and grammar. By placing "Backscatter" in the subject line, you give us permission to consider publishing your letter. Send your letter to Backscatter.