Hamster power
Amidst a frantic band of jumping and shouting little kids, a science teacher attempts to explain the concept of conservation of energy to an 8-year old. Meanwhile, another bunch of children is jumping up down, waving their hands in the air, to make a lightning bolt strike a tree. Designed to be yet another ‘interactive’ science exposition, the energy gallery in the science museum subjects a hapless visitor to a torrent of acoustic abuse and even electric shock therapy.
Indeed, for adults, the energy gallery may not be quite what they had in mind for an enjoyable, quiet afternoon out. However, by keeping in mind that it is aimed at children of about seven to fourteen years old, I think the gallery succeeds quite well in conveying some of the key issues concerning energy and its associated problems.
With a minimum of text and an overload of audio-visual-sensual effects, it is made clear that it will be very hard to change our current pattern of energy consumption. Visitors can have a try at energy management by pretending to be minister in a computer simulation. The kids are asked if they would process there hamster into electrical energy to power the television, illustrating rather well that tough choices must be made.
Although all-in-all a good initiative, it is deplorable that virtually no mention is made of the relationship between fossil fuels and climate change, which might raise questions considering that BP and BASF were the main sponsors of the gallery. Definitely worthwhile visiting with your hyperactive little cousin!
2 comments:
I suppose Sarah would be the expert on this, but I was under the impression that BP gave little pressure over content. The argument was that it would only be good publicity for them if people trusted the exhibition, and it was seen to have been built by the science museum rather than their sponsors
They did, however, have a bit of Greenpeace action when it opened.
Alice is right - Science Museum interpreters do work very hard - and pride themselves on - remaining 'neutral' whoever money is coming from. They see themselves as being a 'brand' that connotes neutrality and expertise and do not want to compromise this. And in fact there is information on fossil fuels and climate change within the gallery: within both the 'Info Zone' computer interactives and in the Energy Minister game, I think.
But I think your comments point to a couple of problems. The first is that however independent the development process is, the fact that a company has its name stuck on an exhibition, gallery or event arouses suspicion. I've pointed this out before with the Nintendo event we went to at the Dana Centre; having such obviously partisan sponsors just makes me uneasy. This in its turn relates to something we discussed last week: museums are broke and they need to get their money from somewhere. At the moment commerce seems to be the only option, no matter what effect this has on perceived independence. I wonder whether the Science Museum - and similar places - are slowly eroding the value of their brand. Only time will tell, I guess...
And secondly, I think the reason you point to a lack of information on climate change within 'Energy' is that the gallery simply tries to do too much. As you note, there are interactives on pure physics (conservation of energy), future technologies, and the social impacts of energy use today - and everything in between. Maybe a more focussed approach would have helped deflect claims of bias.
Post a Comment