New Science Museum - Now With Real Science!

OpenYourEyes writes "There is a new science museum, run by the National Academy of Science, that has opened in DC. So what? Unklike many museums which simplify their message or use fake data, the exhibits at the Koshland Science Museum are all based on real research, real reports, and real science. Each one contains references to the research reports and data they are based on. Exhibits on DNA, for example, use actual (and long!) DNA sequences to help illustrate how DNA plays a role in disease, agriculture, and criminology. There are also exhibits on Global Climate Change and The Wonders of Science."

And...

[Colonel Angus]

I have to wonder why we have SCIENCE museums that are based on anything else...

My take on the subject

[tomstdenis]

Well I didn't RTFA but I thought I would contribute this little bit...

How's about they stop trying to aim the entire museum [art, science, history] to 8 yr olds? I mean sure it's good to get kids into it but an entire museum that is just "ooh look, some teletubby speaking about physics!" is just pathetic and annoying.

Look, adults have money, kids don't. You want to make money for museum address the money.

As for art museums... STOP BUYING TRASH OF NO VALUE! Just cuz he has a goatee and a french cabaret doesn't mean he's an artist.

Tom

Dumbing down is a good thing

[Neil Blender]

Most people don't have interest in what's real and actual data. They want it condensed into a 5 minute visit to an exhibit. That condenstation often requires simplifying. Look at any blockbuster movie that has science in it. It's the same thing.

Climate Change

[Lurker McLurker]

The section of their website on Climate Change was refreshing. No political or corporate sponsorship-motivated attempts to fudge the issue. No attempt to present something which is a consensus in the scientific community as a debate in order to make things more exciting. Just the facts, and evidence to back them up.

Good work!

Coo

[shadowkoder]

I think this is a great idea! [Random_idea] Maybe even have an area dedicated to bleeding edge reports. Change the exhibit every month to keep the subject changing. [/Random_idea] However, I would also hope that they track the validity of such reports. It would suck to have such a valiant effort towards showing REAL science when the report used is falsified. (The guy who falsisfied reports and wasn't exposed until he was up for a nobel nomination is an example that comes to mind. Popular guy to use reports off of, but later proved false.)

Washington DC

[WindBourne]

I do wish that we would spread these pieces all over the US. Right now, we place all the biggest meusums in D.C or Virginia. That means with one clean hit, all gone. Also, many ppl never make it to Washington (nor have a desire to go there), so they never get to see these treasures.

Re:So, that Global Climate Change exhibit...

[HokieJP]

So, what would you consider evidence of global warming?

I mean, I assume you don't dispute that the global average temperature [grida.no] has been increasing over the past few decades. So would you say that climatologists haven't proven that this is outside the bounds of normal climate variation? If so, what sort of evidence would satisfy you in this regard? Can you offer any data to show that this trend isn't significant?

What I'd like to see...

[jdray]

If this catches on, maybe the Discovery Network will sit up and take notice and start having programs for people who can think. DirecTV beams twenty-odd "educational" channels to my television, and I still spend a lot of time watching PBS that I could get for free.

Okay, so maybe it's not "a lot" of time, but it's a significant amount. What I'd like to see is "television for people with three digit IQs." The current fare is distinctly lacking in that area.

Hopefully few corporate spondsered exhibits

[Ranger96]

One of the things that always bothers me about so many science and technology museums is all of the exhibits that are skewed by the sponsorship. One example - the Fort Worth Museum of Science & History had an exhibit on the history of computer technology that was sponsored by IBM. The exhibits went into great detail on the technical innovations introduced by IBM. But somehow, the semiconductor just appeared out of nowhere sometime around 1960! There was no mention of Texas Instruments or Fairchild Semi anywhere.

Re:Huh?

[nacturation]

Which science museums FAKE their data?
(I can understand simplifying it, but outright faking it?)

How about explanations of potential energy? Have a ramp 3 meters high with a bowling ball on it. Let the bowling ball go. How fast will it be going once it reaches the bottom of the ramp? Well, calculate the potential energy of the ball at 3 meters. Convert that directly to kinetic energy to achieve a speed at the bottom. Put up a nice little chart for everybody to see. This would be fake data. Unless, of course, you account for friction between the ball and the ramp which uses some of that potential energy to overcome. The energy lost in getting the ball to rotate. Also consider air resistance, experimental error, etc.

Real science is putting up an exhibit where people can start the ball rolling and have the speed automatically calculated at the bottom. Let them do this three times and write down the end speed for each time. Then show why the speed isn't what typical calculations would give because of the reasons mentioned above. For hardcore science, teach them how to calculate the energy lost due to angular momentum, coefficient of friction between the ball and the surface, etc.

Science is not facts.

[dpilot]

S.F. reference - "Cycle of Fire" by Hal Clement. A primitive alien wants to better himself and his race, and gets the chance to freely study while associating with humans, with the sad realization that the new knowledge will be wiped before he's returned to his people.

*** SPOILER ***

But he was clever - while all knowledge was wiped, he managed to hang onto *the scientific method*, so he and his race could accelerate progress in the future.

Re:What I'd like to see...

[Martin Blank]

I remember when I used to watch THC and Discovery for their programs on a wide variety of things. Then came Discovery Wings, and I lived in glee for about a year as I watched all the Wings programs I had managed to miss because they couldn't keep a relatively constant schedule on the original channel. Now Discovery is all about redecorating your house and changing your wardrobe (with the occasional crime bit). Discovery Science still has the occasional neat deep-sea exploration, but for the most part, I am no longer able to take naps on the weekend bathed in the glow of useful scientific information.

THC still occasionally has some interesting things, and they have a knack for finding mundane things and making them interesting (like being able to be fascinated by an hour on the history of hand tools). Their library is starting to run thin, though, with more and more WW2 material showing up again (someone once referred to it as The Hitler Channel for its preoccupation with WW2 documentaries), and now they're turning too heavily towards commercial entertainment. I don't mind the occasional such movie (such as when they show "Tora! Tora! Tora!" while discussing the attack on Pearl Harbor), but it's turning into an open entertainment platform instead of the educational platform it could (and, IMHO, should) present.

Good Science Museum needed in DC

[BadCatRobot]

If anybody else has suffered through the *highly* politicized "Science in American Life" exhibit at the Museum of History in DC, you know what I mean. It featured--
1) a intricate diorama of two (white, male) 19th century scientists arguing about who got the credit for inventing saccharine,
2) control panel for a nuclear reactor, and some of the flash-ash images from Hiroshima,
3) blamed the invention of birth control pills for the decline of the American family,
4) the ONLY use for nylon they could come up with was ... nylon stockings.
Lots more in that vein. Not a single positive image of science or scientists in the whole thing. American Chemical Society paid 2 million to put that exhibit up, and were so furious with what had been done with their money they insisted their name be removed from it. Plenty of false information in *that* museum exhibit!

Re:And...

[lost_n_mad]

I grew up around the Oak Ridge area. The science museum there was great. It was a wonderful balance between science and entertainment. There were two types of exhibits, real science and "wonder" science. While you could properly exhibit efficiency in a machine (all exhibits were hands on by the way, follow the steps which were based on the scientific method, and the results would be obvious to the observer) on some of the machines you could not, why you say? Because sometimes the principle for the experiment is flawed. It taught me how to build an experiment, and record the results, and repeat the experiment.
Sure staring at a lengthy data report and some visual aid to the data will inform the visitor, but building an experiment, and recording results teaches as well as informs. The fact that one museum (as well as the story poster) has stated that others are using bad data, or misleading the public just really pisses me off. I love the Smithsonian (also located in DC). I love the Oak Ridge National Science and Energy Museum. I love Cape Canaveral and Huntsville's Space museums. To call them inaccurate (tantamount to lying) is low.

Re:I wonder how many people would actually go to t

[kavau]

For me, one of the most impressive museum experiences was when I first saw a cloud chamber at the German Museum in Munich. To be able to actually "see" subatomic particles breaking up into other particles and leaving their trace in the mist, to be able to "see" those processes with my own eyes, was incredible. And to learn that scientists deduced much of the workings of our universe from such observations is fascinating!

To me, this is clearly an example of real science that people can talk about at home. But then, I'm a science nerd myself, so I have no idea if the general public would appreciate this as much as I did. And, thinking about it, my constant talking about cloud chambers might actually be the reason why girls tend to avoid me at parties; maybe I should give the dinosaurs a shot some time :-)

Re:What I'd like to see...

[Anonymous Coward]

I said 100 because I thought that IQ tests are geared to have an average of 100. That may be outdated though, perhaps with inflation, its 50 now.

Actually scores are going up nowadays. Our kids are smarter than we are.