Conclusions from the Guest Editors

Abstract

Science museums engage with their communities and educate the public about the process of science. In this role, museums present the best consensus of current scientific information, making it accessible to a wide range of audiences. At their best, museums are not static concerns: they actively participate within their communities, seek community input on their programs and plans, and collaborate with schools and other educational institutions and scientists. On the internet, where the best and the worst scientific findings are intermingled, users must rely on their own judgment to assess the validity of information. The authority of science museums, on the other hand, derives from the integrity of their vetting process. Because the information they present is presumed to have been evaluated and approved by a range of experts and educators, the public has a high confidence in its quality and validity. As physician Stuart Flynn points out, museums are one of few institutions that the public trusts to help them understand modern medicine. Happily, this view of museums is largely correct. But it is also idealized, and there are several key dilemmas museums face in the effort to be educational, current, and trustworthy. The challenges faced by museums are driven by external as well as internal circumstances. For example, museums may spend months or even years developing exhibits that may be displayed to the public for decades. Scientific information, however, changes rapidly, so what was accurate yesterday may be superseded by newer information tomorrow. Furthermore, funding for the creation of an exhibition is usually not available for later revisions. Science museums also strive to be enduringly positive influences in their communities, so that they are often understandably reluctant to create exhibitions and programs on topics unacceptable to visitors, funders, and staff. By incorporating community input into exhibitions and programs, museums can explore ways of presenting controversial content, but not all religious and cultural disagreements can be fully resolved. Some museums are viewed as ideal models for how to communicate and learn in modern society, constantly improving their effectiveness through learning research and evaluation. In practice, however, there is wide variation in how well different museums incorporate effective teaching techniques into their exhibits and programs. The articles presented in this issue present both the challenges and the opportunities for museums to play a central role in educating the public about influential advances in health and biomedicine. Ideally, science museums should push boundaries that help visitors discuss and debate biomedical issues that may be difficult to understand and accept, but are crucial to public health and well-being. The economics of health care, new ways of editing genomes in situ, AIDS amongst teens in Africa, genetically modified plants, the influence of climate change on the incidence of infectious disease, discrimination in health care based on ethnicity and sexual museums & social issues, Vol. 11 No. 1, April, 2016, 93–94