Bimonthly News Journal of the Association of Science-Technology Centers ... · Misunderstanding of...

Bimonthly News Journal of the Association of Science-Technology Centers March/April 2006

Misunderstanding of Science:

The EvolutionChallenge

The EvolutionChallenge

Beyond the Evolution Battle: Addressing Public MisunderstandingWhat They Bring with Them: Visitors’ Perspectives on EvolutionIntuition and Understanding: How Children Develop Evolution ConceptsUnfiltered and Unbiased: Discussing Evolution in St. LouisEvolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design: A Natural History Museum’s Experience

Bimonthly News Journal of the Association of Science-Technology Centers

Bonnie VanDornExecutive Director

Wendy PollockDirector of Research, Publications, and Exhibitions

Carolyn Sutterfield Editor

Christine RuffoResearcher/Writer

Brendan CartwrightPublications Assistant

Editorial Advisors

Gail BeckerLouisville Science CenterLouisville, Kentucky, U.S.A.

Brigitte CoutantLa Cité des Sciences et de l’IndustrieParis, France

Graham FarmeloScience Museum, London, U.K.

Preeti Gupta New York Hall of ScienceQueens, New York, U.S.A.

Nohora Elizabeth HoyosMaloka, Bogotá, Colombia

Erik JacquemynTechnopolis, the Flemish Science CentreMechelen, Belgium

Christine ReichMuseum of Science, Boston Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

Harison YusoffPetrosains, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Contributors

Warren D. AllmonE. Margaret EvansTerry HolekampGail JennesGretchen JenningsJill SteinMartin StorksdieckMartin Weiss

ASTC Dimensions (ISSN 1528-820X) is published six times a year by the Association of Science-Technology Centers Incorporated, 1025 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 500,Washington, DC 20005-6310, U.S.A. Copyright ©2006 the Association of Science-Technology Centers Incorporated. All rights reserved. ASTC Dimensions is printed on 45 percent recyled paper with environmentally friendly inks.

ASTC Dimensions is intended to keep member institutions apprised of trends, practices,perspectives, and news of significance to the science center field. Each ASTC member receives five free copies of an issue as a benefit of membership. Individual and bulk subscriptions are also available. For employees of ASTC-member institutions, the annualrate is US$35; $45 outside the United States. For all others, the price is $50; $60 outsidethe United States. Send name, address, name of institution, and payment in U.S. dollars to ASTC, 1025 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005-6310,U.S.A., Attn: ASTC Dimensions. For more information, call 202/783-7200 x140, or e-mail [email protected]. ALTERNATIVE FORMATS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST.

To submit news items and ideas for articles, contact Carolyn Sutterfield, editor, 202/783-7200 x130; e-mail [email protected]. For editorial guidelines, visit www.astc.org.

IN TH IS I SSUE March/Apri l 2006

With so many museum- and science-related publications addressing the intelligent design/evolution controversy, what can ASTC’s journal contribute tothe conversation? Perhaps we can best draw some lessons from our own failureto communicate. Although the science of evolution is not in question, publicunderstanding certainly falls short. In this issue, we examine why that might be, and what science centers and museums can do about it—from surveying visitors’ attitudes vis-a-vis those of the public at large, to focusing on staff training, to creating effective exhibits and programming, to opening the floor to community discussion. As Martin Weiss observes in his lead article, “We have the tools, the audience, and their respect: we just need the will.”

FeaturesBeyond the Evolution Battle: Addressing Public Misunderstanding . . . . . . . . . . . .3In Darwin’s Footsteps: The Man and His Journey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design: A Natural History Museum’s . . . .Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5What They Bring with Them: Museum Visitors’ Perspectives on Evolution . . . . . . .8Unfiltered and Unbiased: Discussing Evolution in St. Louis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Intuition and Understanding: How Children Develop Their Concepts of Evolution .11Living Evolution: A Passion for Science Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Evolution Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Science as a World View, or, Can Science Explain Everything? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

DepartmentsCalendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16ASTC Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Spotlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Grants & Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Cover: Working in the microsphere (diatom researcher Edward Theriot, lower right) andmacrosphere (biologist Rosemary Grant, left), modern scientists advance our knowledge ofevolution in the tradition of Charles Darwin. Credits (clockwise from upper right): Darwin portrait © The Richard Milner Archive; orchids by Craig Chesek/AMNH; Edward Theriot, courtesy MarshaMiller; Rosemary Grant, courtesy Rosemary and Peter Grant; Tree of Life sketch, courtesy the Syndics ofCambridge University Library. Diatom, HIV virus, and finch illustrations by Angie Fox/Explore Evolution.

ASTC Dimensions • March/April 2006 3

Addressing Public MisunderstandingBy Martin Weiss

On December 20, 2005, JudgeJohn Jones III, of the U.S.District Court for the Mid-

dle District of Pennsylvania, issued ablistering 139-page memorandumopinion in favor of the plaintiffs inKitzmiller v.. Dover. In his decision,the judge referred to the “breathtak-ing inanity” of the school board’s decision to require an antievolutiondisclaimer in the ninth grade biologyclass. He also forcefully noted, “in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and otherresources which would be occasionedby a subsequent trial,” that intelligentdesign (ID) is not science.The defendants, members of the

Dover Area School Board, had re-quired that a statement referring to“gaps” in the theory of evolution andsuggesting “intelligent design” as anviable alternative be read to biologystudents. The plaintiffs were 11 par-ents who alleged that ID was in fact a religious construct and that present-ing it to their children in a publicschool science class violated the “establishment clause” (regarding the separation of church and state) of the U.S. Constitution’s FirstAmendment. Although Judge Jones’ jurisdiction

encompasses only his own district, hisdecision is so clearly reasoned that itis hard to imagine other federal dis-trict judges ignoring it. In the battlebetween religion and science—a conflict eagerly promoted by themedia since Anglican bishop SamuelWilberforce first debated CharlesDarwin’s On the Origin of Species in1860 with biologist T.H. Huxley—isthis the final salvo? Not likely.

A communication crisis

It is clear from recent opinion pollsthat most Americans simply don’t understand science in general, muchless evolution. Part of the confusionarises over the definition of terms like “theory” (see “Selections fromEvolution and Creationism: A Museum Docent’s Guide,” page 7), but there ismuch more about what science hasdiscovered that educators are failingto convey.Leonard Krishtalka, director of the

University of Kansas Natural HistoryMuseum & Biodiversity ResearchCenter, in Lawrence, put his fingeron it when he told a Chicago Tribunereporter last October, “We have donea terrible job of explaining what science is. I would imagine to non -scientists a lot of science and technol-ogy sounds like so much magic. Is itany surprise that people are choosingone kind of magic over another?” In science centers, where evolution

is traditionally viewed as the provinceof natural history museums, it is un-usual to find an exhibit or a programon the topic. Evolution is also notcommonly addressed in zoos, aquaria,or botanical gardens—institutionsthat consider conservation their pri-mary mission. And even in naturalhistory museums, label writers haveresorted to euphemisms like “biologi-cal change over time” when describ-ing the evolution of species.Why is evolution avoided in

science museums? In an online surveyof science center and museum staffconducted by the New York Hall ofScience in April and May 2005, thebarrier to presenting evolution cited

Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education(NCSE), a Berkeley, California–basedorganization that defends the teachingof evolution in public schools, says shehas seen the anti-evolution movementrebound from such setbacks before:“It’s like a waterbed,” Scott says. “Youpush it down in one place, and itbounces up in another.” Only a month after the Kitzmiller

ruling, parents sued the El TejonSchool District, in Lebec, California,for proposing to offer a course on“The Philosophy of Intelligent De-sign.” The proposal, a thinly disguisedattempt to challenge evolution by pro-moting ID and creationism, was with-drawn. Surprisingly, this outcome wasbacked by the Seattle-based DiscoveryInstitute, a leading promoter of IDand a previous supporter of the Doverschool board, citing concern for fur-ther damage to the ID cause.Total victory may be long in com-

ing, however, as there are thousands ofschool boards across the United Statesmaking decisions about curriculum. InKansas, the State Board of Educationvoted in November 2005 to allow IDto be taught in public schools. Criticsfear this decision will encourage otherstate boards to make similar moves,distracting and confusing teachers andstudents. A member of the Kansas science standards committee, a mathteacher who opposes the changes, toldLondon’s Guardian newspaper lastyear, “They believe that the naturalisticbias of science is in fact atheistic, andthat if we don’t change science, wecan’t believe in God.... This is really anattack on all of science. Evolution isjust the weak link.”

Beyond the Evolution Battle:Beyond the Evolution Battle:

4 March/April 2006 • ASTC Dimensions

Planning for Darwin, the 6,000-square-foot exhibition that

opened at New York’s American Mu-seum of Natural History (AMNH) lastNovember, began well before themost recent round of attacks on theteaching of evolution in U.S. schools.Its New York run is the first step in ajourney that will culminate, fittingly,at London’s Natural History Museumin 2009, the bicentennial of theBritish naturalist’s birth. But Charles Darwin himself would

not be surprised to learn that what hecalled “transmutation”—the transfor-mation of plant and animal speciesover millions of years through aprocess of natural selection—is stillexciting controversy. It was concernover that controversy, and the effectit might have on his beloved family,that kept Darwin from publishing hisideas for more than 20 years after hefirst sketched in a notebook his con-cept of the Tree of Life. It was only the prospect of being

trumped by a younger scientist, Alfred Russel Wallace, who hadbeen doing similar research, thatdrove Darwin into print in 1859 withOn the Origin of Species by Meansof Natural Selection. Over the next12 years, he would publish threemore books elaborating his theory.Visitors to Darwin can retrace the

naturalist’s journey to discovery, beginning with his five-year voyageto South America aboard the HMSBeagle (1831–36). Historic artifacts(Darwin’s mag nifying glass, his ship-board Bible, specimens collected onthe Beagle expedition, notebooksand letters, and a reconstruction ofhis study at Down House in Kent,complete with first editions of hisbooks) convey the careful habits ofthe scholar/collector. Live animalsand plants from the places he visited(horned frogs, a green iguana, a pairof Galápagos tortoises, collectionsof carnivorous plants and orchids)suggest the wonder he felt at en-countering so rich a diversity of life. In a final section, Evolution Today,

videos and interactive stations allowvisitors to follow the application ofDarwin’s ideas in today’s biologicalresearch. One area, Social Reactionsto Darwin, traces public responsesfrom Social Darwinism to creation-ism, while a large plasma screen

A cladogram depicts the evolution-ary relationships among groups ofprimates. Photo by Denis Finnin, AMNH

A giant tortoise (Geochelon elephan-topus) is one of several live speci-mens featured in Darwin, throughMay 29 at the American Museum ofNatural History, New York. Photo by JoeMcDonald, Clyde Peeling’s Reptiland

Prominently displayed in the exhibition’s reproduction of CharlesDarwin’s Down House study is an1859 first edition of On the Originof Species. Photo by Denis Finnin, AMNH

The Evolution of the Horse exhibitexplores stages in the developmentof the species, from the dog-sizedHyracotherium to the modernEquus. Photo by Denis Finnin, AMNH

plays video clips of scientists likeFrancis Collins of the HumanGenome Project, himself a practic-ing Christian, discussing the relation-ship between science and faith.Darwin was designed and pro-

duced by AMNH in cooperation withEnglish Heritage (the organ izationthat maintains Down House), theNatural History Museum, Cambridge University, and some ofDarwin’s living descendants. Sup-port for the $3 million project came from the Austin Heart Foundation,the Carnegie Corporation of NewYork, and several generous privatedonors. AMNH has planned a full sched-

ule of lectures, panel discussions,and family programs to accompanythe exhibition. A companion book,Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life,was written by AMNH curator of paleontology Niles Eldredge, whoalso curated the exhibition. After closing in New York on May

29, Darwin will travel to the FieldMuseum, Chicago; the Museum ofScience, Boston; and the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, beforeending its run in London. The Dar-win web site at www. amnh.org willbe archived online as a research tooland guide to the naturalist’s life andwork.—Carolyn Sutterfield ■

In Darwin’s Footsteps: The Man and His Journey


ber 2005 CBS News poll, 67 percentof U.S. respondents said they thoughtit was possible “to believe in bothGod and evolution.” And althoughless than half (48 percent) of Britishrespondents to a January 2006 BBCpoll said they accepted evolution asthe best description for the develop-ment of life, 69 percent still wanted ittaught in the science curriculum. Visitors may listen if science muse-

ums make it clear (1) that we considerreligion and science to be two differ-ent but valid approaches to under-standing the natural world—onephilosophical, one experimental—and(2) that the absence of religion in ourprograms means not that we are anti-religion, but merely that science limitsits investigations to what can be meas-ured, tested, and possibly disproved.There is no way to test for the cosmicintelligence that ID proponents posit.Speaking at the 2005 ASTC AnnualConference, NSCE’s Scott made thispoint when she told her listeners, “Noone has yet invented a ‘theometer.’”What can museums do to combat

misunderstanding? A review of evolu-tion exhibitions by Judy Diamondand Judy Scotchmoor in the forth-coming journal Museums & Social Issues (see “Evolution Resources,” page14) suggests that museums shouldadopt new approaches to presentingevolution that will make the sciencemore accessible to visitors. Several institutions are attempting just that.At the American Museum of

Natural History, in New York City,the Darwin traveling exhibition (opposite page) shows how the 19th-century naturalist’s personal journeyof discovery led to his theory of natu-ral selection and evolution becomingthe foundation of modern biology. The University of Nebraska State

Museum, in Lincoln, has worked withfive partner museums to develop theinteractive Explore Evolution exhibi-tion (see page 12). Aimed primarilyat visitors to university museums, Explore Evolution picks up where the

Darwin exhibition leaves off, expanding audiences’ awareness ofmodern evolution research in readilycomprehensible terms. Human Evolution, at the Museum

of Science, Boston (see page 13),uses live animal displays and hands-on activities based on genetics tohighlight the similarities between humans and other species. And atChicago’s Field Museum, the formerLife Over Time exhibit reopensMarch 10 as Evolving Planet, withthe museum’s marquee dinosaursnow repositioned in the context of 4 billion years of evolution on Earth. A major challenge in all informal

science settings is how to presentbasic principles to young children inways that will help them understandand assimilate more complex scien-tific concepts as they develop cogni-tively. In recent years, cognitive science researchers like E. MargaretEvans have begun to study and understand more about the ways thatchildren develop intuitive theories asthey grow and move toward adult-hood, particularly in terms of theirreasoning about evolutionary changein the natural world (see “Intuitionand Understanding,” page 11). If we are to be successful in help-

ing children accept evolution as a description of change in the naturalworld, we need to understand howto incorporate these new findingsinto museum exhibitions on evolu-tion. Early in 2006, the New YorkHall of Science is planning to begin,with funding from the National Science Foundation, a study to ex-plore how we can best translate thiscognitive research into the informallearning environment. The projecthas the potential to create a para-digm shift in how science centersand museums present evolution andother complex science to children. ■

Martin Weiss is vice president for science at the New York Hall of Science, Queens, New York.

most often was concerns about nega-tive reaction by the community, fol-lowed by questions of marketability,misalignment with mission, lack ofstaff training, and cost of programs.Museums may also fear losing localand state government funding alongwith community support. The result of this abdication of

responsibility is public confusion,even among those who regularly visitscience centers and museums. Whenthe New York Hall of Science polledvisitors at seven museums in 2005 (see “What They Bring with Them,”page 8), nearly a third said evolution“might or might not be accurate, youcan never know for sure.”

An educational opportunity

As often happens, what initially seemsto be a difficulty may in fact be anopportunity. Evolution needs betterrepresentation to the general public,and science centers and museums arein a unique position to do this. Ourinstitutions are respected as impartialpresenters of science and technology(see “Unfiltered and Unbiased,” page10); we know how to present scientif-ic concepts in an engaging, free-choiceatmosphere; and we already supportteachers in their efforts to make sci-ence more accessible to students.We have also shown that we can

address controversial topics effectively.Consider What About AIDS?, a 1991traveling exhibition developed by aconsortium of museums to demystifythe science of HIV and AIDS, gatherlocal support, and help staff success-fully deal with non-supportive visitors,or A Question of Truth, a 1996 Ontario Science Centre exhibitionthat explored the idea of bias in scien-tific theories and research. We havethe tools, the audience, and their respect; we just need the will. Fortunately, most museum visitors

are interested in learning science, andthe general public may not be as antagonistic as we think. In an Octo-


portunity for muse-ums to do more to encourage visitors tolearn more about theidea that essentially allcredible scientistsagree is the corner-stone of biology.

In 2003 the Paleon-tological ResearchInstitution (PRI), inIthaca, New York,opened a new 18,000-square-foot exhibitionand education facility,the Museum of theEarth. The museum’s permanent exhibitionsinclude a separate exhibit area on theevidence for and mechanisms of evo-lution, as well as a strong evolutionarytheme throughout. We knew that to maximize visitors’

exposure to evolution we would needto provide our docents—the volunteereducators who handle most of thestaffing on the floor—with specializedtraining and encouragement. Moreimmediate concerns intervened, how-ever, and the training was put on holdas we worked to complete exhibits.A few months after opening, we

had an incident that put evolution atthe center of attention. One of ourdocents was confronted by a group ofcreationists, who challenged her to defend evolution and kept her cor-nered for 45 minutes. She finally hadto excuse herself to escape.

By Warren D. Allmon

A Natural History Museum’s Experience

Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design:

Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design:

Americans as a whole do notknow much about evolution.Take, for example, the 1993

International Social Survey poll thatqueried people in 21 nations on theirbasic knowledge of evolution; Ameri-cans came in last, behind Bulgaria andSlovenia. In a 2000 poll by People forthe American Way (PFAW), 34 per-cent of respondents agreed with an incorrect definition of evolution (“Humans have developed from apesover the past millions of years”), andanother 16 percent either thoughtevolution means something else ordidn’t know what it means. In a 2004U.S. Gallup poll, 30 percent said theydidn’t know enough about evolutionto have any opinion on it. Americans also don’t know what

scientists think about evolution. Inthat same 2000 PFAW poll, 69 per-cent of the respondents who hadheard of evolution said they believedeither that it is a “mostly” or “com-pletely” inaccurate account of how humans were created and developed,or that “you can never know for sure.”A 2004 Newsweek survey found thatjust 45 percent of Americans thinkevolution is “widely accepted by thescientific community and well sup-ported by evidence.” And in a 2005Harris poll, 48 percent disagreed withthe statement “Darwin’s theory of evo-lution is proven by fossil discoveries.”Fortunately, Americans do go to

museums by the millions. And so, inthese times when evolution is so muchin the news, there is a significant op-

The next day we began putting to-gether a modest training program thatnow includes a published short“Guide for Docents” (see oppositepage) and quarterly one-hour trainingseminars by a staff scientist. We also decided to open these training sessionsfree of charge to the general public, aswell as to our volunteers. Today, almost two years into the

program, the responses have beenmany and varied. We have learned agreat deal about public and media understanding of evolution and relatedtopics, as well as about how other museums are dealing (or not dealing)with the subject, and we have tried toadapt our programs accordingly. The first thing we learned was that

very few museums have formal train-ing programs for staff or volunteers in

A volunteer docent, left, helps visitors search for 370-million-year-old fossils in the Fossil Lab. Photo courtesy Museum of the Earth


reported difficulty in convincing administrators that this is a subjectthey should be involved in.From our own visitors and docents,

we have learned that our visitors arevery interested in the subjects of evo-lution, creationism, and intelligent de-sign—particularly following recentlegal actions in Kansas and Pennsylva-nia. Aggressive and dramatic encoun-ters between museum staff and visitorsmay have attracted media attention,but such occurrences are, in our expe-rience, rare. Much more common aresimple and sincere questions aboutsuch topics as the evidence for evolu-tion, the meaning of intelligent de-sign, and methods of geological dating(which is not directly relevant to evo-lution per se, but always comes up). A common observation of our staff

and volunteers is that visitors often donot know how or what to ask aboutthese topics. We therefore encourage

our docents to gently solicit questionsfrom visitors who seem especially interested, and to really listen to thesequeries before trying to answer. Feed-back from both visitors and docentsgoes into ongoing revisions of theguide. We anticipate continuedgrowth in this area.Perhaps our most important lesson

has been that even a modest (and underfunded) effort to improve the“evolutionary literacy” of museum visitors can produce large results interms of media exposure and publicinterest. The need here is so vast, andthe stakes so high, that every museumcan and must do all it can. ■

Warren D. Allmon is an adjunct associ-ate professor in the department of earthand atmospheric sciences at CornellUniversity and director of the Paleonto-logical Research Institution/ Museum ofthe Earth, Ithaca, New York.

how to explain evolution to visitors.We had come to that conclusionanecdotally while preparing our ownmaterials, but it was confirmed laterby the dozens of inquiries we receivedabout our program from zoos, parks,informal educators, and other muse-ums after the New York Times pub-lished an article on our training program in September 2005. Many larger museums apparently

offer no such training at all or con -sider that it is included in the generalorientation they provide to all floorvolunteers. Smaller museums appearto be more acutely interested in pro-viding explicit training in evolution totheir volunteers, but they are not surehow to proceed: Some told us of theirown difficult encounters with visitors;others said they wanted to be pro -active and develop programs for theirstaff and volunteers before an incidentoccurred. Some small institutions

Evolution is a—perhaps the—fundamental idea of modern biology. Every field of biology concerned with whole organisms, including ecology, behavior, and systematics(the study of biodiversity), is based on evolution. Essentiallyall practicing professional biologists who work on whole or-ganisms accept evolution as an adequate explanation forthe order, history, and diversity of life they observe. There isno serious disagreement among such professional biolo-gists about whether evolution is “true.”

Natural selection is a surprisingly simple concept. It is theidea that some individuals survive and reproduce betterthan others because they have inherited characteristics thathelp them do so. They therefore contribute, on average,more genes to later generations.

Creationism is the belief that Earth and its life were created, essentially in their modern forms, by a super-natural power. Modern creationism is actually quite diverse;it includes people who think that Earth is 10,000 years old,and those who believe it is much older; people who believethat the Biblical flood explains all of the geological record,and those who accept a more complex history. Most importantly, creationists believe in the action of divine orsupernatural forces in shaping the natural world on a regu-lar basis, and creationists reject evolution as an explanationfor the order, history, and diversity of life.

A “theory” in science is a structure of related ideas that explains one or more natural phenomena and that is supported by observations from the natural world; it is notsomething less than a “fact.” Theories actually occupy thehighest, not the lowest, rank among scientific ideas; theyare systems of explanation that unite many different kindsof data and observations.... Evolution is a “theory” in thesame way that the idea that matter is made of atoms is atheory, that bacteria cause disease is a theory, that the sunbeing the center of the solar system is a theory. Any ofthese theories might be incorrect (and good scientists mustalways consider that possibility), but scientists accept all ofthem as provisionally “true” because there is so much evidence to support them.

Evolution challenges some people’s views of religion, morality, and ethics. This is not because evolution is contrary to religion in general, but because it is contrary tosome religious views. Because of these objections, evolu-tion—almost uniquely among scientific ideas—is often thesubject of passionate public, political, and legal debates.Evolution is as well supported as any scientific idea, such asatomic theory, gravity, or the heliocentric solar system. Discarding or diluting the teaching or public discussion ofevolution is thus a challenge to all science, and therefore afundamental intellectual issue for society. ■

Full text of this docent’s guide, written by Warren D. Allmon, can be downloaded in pdf from the Museum ofthe Earth’s web site, www.priweb.org.

Selections from Evolution and Creationism: A Guide for Museum Docents

❖ ❖ ❖

❖ ❖ ❖

❖ ❖ ❖

survey included some items from thePFAW study for comparison, as well asitems that captured museum visitors’perspectives on bringing children toexhibitions that feature evolution. Data collectors were asked to em-

ploy a random sampling procedure, although exact procedures at eachvenue may have varied slightly. Datawas entered into an Excel data sheet bystaff at the New York Hall of Science,and the present authors analyzed it.Here are some of the findings that

emerged:1. Both our survey and the PFAW

survey probed respondents about theirperception and understanding of evo-lution (see Table 1). While museumvisitors were only slightly more likelyto select the more accurate definitionof human evolution as developmentfrom less advanced forms of life overmillions of years (56%, versus 48%)and to self-report being “very” or“somewhat” familiar with the topic(90%, versus 83%), the data samplesdiffered significantly in terms of their


Not surprisingly, the currentcontroversy in the UnitedStates over the teaching of

evolution, creationism, and/or “intelli-gent design” in public schools is affect-ing the science museum and sciencecenter world. A few museums, con-cerned that they might offend or alien-ate some audiences, have resorted toself-censorship—avoiding the “E”word in their labels, for example, orpassing up large-format films that dealdirectly with evolution. Others havedeclared themselves squarely in the“science only” camp, refusing to acknowledge any other perspectives onthe origin of life.These are opposite ends of a spec-

trum, of course, and most museumprofessionals likely stand somewhere inthe middle. Still, the passions involvedhave created uncertainty about appro-priate ways to present Darwinian evolution in science centers and science museums. In the spring of 2005, we and a

number of colleagues at ASTC-member institutions conducted a sur-vey of U.S. science center visitors togauge public attitudes toward museumexhibitions on evolution. The purposeof the study was: (1) to compare sci-ence museum visitors’ understandingof and beliefs about evolution to thoseof a representative sample of the U.S.population, and (2) to assess visitors’ interest in attending evolution-relatedexhibitions at science museums. Thiswas preliminary work toward a National Science Foundation projectto research whether it is possible to introduce children to conceptual pre-cursors of biological evolution, such as

variation, inheritance, and selection,through informal, museum-based interventions (see “Beyond the Evolu-tion Battle,” page 3).

Public views of evolution

We administered a one-page question-naire to a total of 387 museum visitorsin seven science museums representinga range of large and small, rural andurban, and regionally diverse institu-tions. These included the New YorkHall of Science; the Miami Museum ofScience & Planetarium; the North Museum of Science and History inLancaster, Pennsylvania; the CaliforniaAcademy of Sciences; the Science Museum of Minnesota; the Academyof Natural Sciences in Philadelphia;and the St. Louis Science Center. The basis for our work was Evolu-

tion and Creationism in Public Educa-tion: An In-depth Reading of PublicOpinion, the report of a prior nationalsurvey conducted by People for theAmerican Way (PFAW, 2000). Our

By Martin Storksdieck and Jill Stein

Museum Visitors’ Perspectives on Evolution

What They Bring with Them:

Table 1: Comparison of Evolution Definition between Museum and National Survey

Definition of Evolution

Museum National Percent Percent (n=378) (n=1,500)

Evolution means human beings have developed from apes over the past millions of years 32% 32%

Evolution means human beings have developed from less advanced forms of life over millions of years 56% 48%

Means something else 11% 15%

Never heard of evolution 1% 5%


view of evolution as accurate (see Table 2) and their opinions on teach-ing evolution and/or creationism inthe schools. This suggests that beliefabout evolution is not necessarily dependent upon one’s level of knowl-edge on the subject. 2. Half of the museum audience

(49%) felt that evolution was either a“completely” or “mostly” accurate ac-count of how humans were createdand developed, compared to only 27% of the national sample. 3. The museum audience was also

far less likely than the national sampleto support teaching only creationismin the schools (1%, versus 16%), indicating that visitors to a sciencemuseum are in fact more likely to support public communication aboutevolution.4. Museum visitors were very sup-

portive of science museums’ featuringan exhibition on evolution. Nearlytwo-thirds (59% of 385 respondents)said that science museums should “definitely” do so, and 27% said “per-haps,” likely meaning that their opin-ion depended on how the topic waspresented in the exhibition. Only 14%of the museum visitors felt that sciencemuseums should definitely not do anexhibition on evolution. 5. The vast majority of the museum

sample (84%) was also interested inbringing children to an exhibition onevolution; only 16% were not interest-ed. Of those 16%, 83% were also op-posed to science museums having suchan exhibition.

The educational factor

The two samples were similar in termsof age, gender, and ethnicity, but mu-seum visitors in our sample hadachieved a much higher level of educa-tion than had respondents in the na-tional sample. This is in accordancewith previous studies, such as the Na-tional Science Foundation’s Science &

Engineering Indicators of 1998 and2002, which show that museum visitation rates increase with educa-tional attainment. Almost two-thirdsof our museum sample (62%) hadcompleted a college degree, and nearlyhalf of those respondents had gone on to attend graduate school. In contrast, only 34% of the national survey sample had completed a collegedegree.

The museum survey data indicatesthat educational attainment is

strongly correlated with familiaritywith and knowledge of evolution. College graduates were twice as likelyto state that they were “very familiar”with evolution as were high schoolgraduates, and three times less likely torate themselves as “not that familiar”with the concept. Highly educated visitors were also more likely to selectthe most accurate definition of evolution. Attitudes toward evolution also

correlated with educational attainment,with college graduates being more like-ly to support evolution-related topics in museums. The differ-ence in perspective on evolution be-tween museum visitors and a nationalsample may thus be a function of

educational attainment.In conclusion, while museum visitors

did not self-report stronger familiaritywith or understanding of evolution thanthe average citizen, they were clearlymore accepting of evolution and thepublic presentation of evolution. Thevast majority felt that science museums should “definitely” feature exhibits on evolution and were interest-ed in bringing their children to such an exhibition. Although a few visitors may feel

ambivalent about evolution, they tendto expect science in a science museum,and the fact that they chose to visitsuch a museum likely makes them tolerant toward the presentation of this topic. ■

Martin Storksdieck and Jill Stein are researchers at the Institute for LearningInnovation, Annapolis, Maryland. Thisarticle is based on a survey done for a National Science Foundation grant projectexpected to begin in early 2006 (see page5). Collaborators included senior staff atthe New York Hall of Science, the NorthMuseum, and the Miami Museum of Sci-ence; museum consultant Mary Marcussen; and reviewers and data collectors at participating museums.

Table 2: Comparison of View of Evolution between Museum and National Survey

View of Evolution

Museum National Percent Percent (n=383) (n=1,500)

A completely accurate account of how humans were created and developed 20% 5%

Mostly accurate 29% 22%

Might or might not be accurate, you can never know for sure 30% 36%

Mostly NOT accurate 7% 8%

Completely NOT accurate 12% 21%

Not sure 2% 3%

Never heard of evolution 0% 5%


Judge Says Intelligent Design Not Science.” “Christians:Evolution Is ‘Anti-God.’” Headlines like these reveal that

the cultural divide between religion and science is as deepas ever. One area where the controversy is particularly hotright now is whether U.S. public schools should teach alter-natives to Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection.It’s not the first time. According to the National Center

for Science Education (www.ncseweb.org), proponents ofcreationism—the belief that God created the world exactly

as described in the Biblicalbook of Genesis—have beenturned back in their efforts tochange curriculum eighttimes since 1968 by SupremeCourt decisions upholdingthe separation of church andstate. In recent years a newgroup, including some scien-tists, has emerged to proposean alternate biological theorythey call “intelligent design.”This concept is the one thatthe Dover, Pennsylvaniaschool board (see page 3) famously wanted to presentto students along with Dar-winian science.As the media flocked to

Judge Jones’ Pennsylvaniacourtroom last summer, agroup of us at the Center forthe Study of Ethics andHuman Values (CSEHV) atWashington University in St.Louis proposed holding anopen public forum on thetopic. Our feeling was thatcoherent explanations of either intelligent design orevolution by natural selectionwere almost never found inpublic discourse. Instead, thecontroversy was reduced toemotional sound bites, with

evolution proponents labeled as either “anti-God” or“truthful scientists” and ID supporters as either “Biblethumpers” or “good Christians.” In holding the forum, ourintention would be to provide the public with simple infor-mation, unfiltered and unbiased, enabling attendees tomake a conscientious decision on their own.We decided to format the event as a moderated discus-

sion between two opposing speakers on the topic “ShouldIntelligent Design Be Taught in Public School Classrooms?”CSEHV director Ira Kodner suggested we contact Al Wiman,vice president for the public understanding of science at theSaint Louis Science Center (and a former TV science

reporter), as someone who could help us present scientificissues to the public. To our delight, Al not only agreed tomoderate the discussion, but also proposed the sciencecenter, a respected public venue, as the host site. Doug King, president and CEO of the Saint Louis Science

Center, readily agreed. “Our mission is to stimulate interestin and understanding of science and technology throughoutthe community,” King said. With science center support, we quickly confirmed two nationally known speakers—Lawrence Krauss, professor of physics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, and the author of anumber of popular books on science, and John Calvert, alawyer and onetime geologist who is managing director ofthe Intelligent Design Network, Shawnee Mission, Kansas.We soon found ourselves engulfed in a controversy of our

own. Shortly after we announced the October 8 event, we received heated messages from community groups, includinga number of science teachers, expressing concern that bysponsoring such a discussion CSEHV and the science centerwere lending credence to the ID movement. Our responsewas that the public can be fully informed only when all sidesare presented in an impartial forum. We further stated ourbelief that presenting only one viewpoint or filtering the factswould be unethical and would destroy our credibility with thelarger public. A public forum on such a stormy topic caught the atten-

tion of the news media. On the second Saturday in October,local reporters joined the more than 400 people packedinto the science center’s May Auditorium. (Science centerstaff estimated that at least 200 were turned away after fireregulations closed the doors.)Turnout is only one measure of success, of course. More

indicative is the level of audience involvement. After thefirst hour, during which each speaker presented his position,the floor was opened to written questions. This catalyzedsome of the most interesting discourse of the afternoon, asthe speakers addressed queries like “Should science booksinclude all of the world’s creation myths?”, “Isn’t the exis-tence of order in nature proof of intelligent design?”, and“What sort of lab investigations would you suggest I use todemonstrate ID to my ninth grade students?”The more than 200 question cards submitted indicated

that we had achieved our goal of engaging and informingthe public regarding both sides of this divisive social issue.The fact that dozens of attendees stayed afterward to chatwith panelists and with each other showed that productivecommunication between polarized people had begun.As members of the civic community, we students see a

need for more such public events at science centers and museums. The spirit of science, after all, is to educate.Today, as people worldwide clash over science-related is-sues from stem cell research to emergency contraception toglobal warming, perhaps more museums will take up thenonpartisan role of presenting objective information to thepublic and providing forums for open discussion. ■

Terry Holekamp is a medical student at Washington Uni versity School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, and an associate of the university’s Center for the Study of Ethics& Human Values, http://humanvalues.wustl.edu/. He wasone of four student organizers of the October 8 forum.

Unfiltered and Unbiased: Discussing Evolution in St. Louis

By Terry Holekamp

Al Wiman, center, of the Saint Louis Science Center, moderates the October8 discussion between physics professorLawrence Krauss, left, and ID propo-nent John Calvert. Top: A poster adver-tises the event. Images courtesy Center for theStudy of Ethics and Human Values

“

persist into adulthood, where they areclearly at odds with an evolutionaryperspective.The following are some observa-

tions about the ways that children ofdifferent ages reason about differenttypes of transformations.

Four- to 7-year-olds

In preschool through about secondgrade (ages 4 to 7), most children re-ject the idea of almost any kind of radical biological change, from meta-morphosis to adaptive variation. Fromthe perspective of the young child’s intuitive biology, living things cannotchange. Perhaps because this age groupis learning so much that is differentand new, they find it useful to believethat the world around them is perma-nent and enduring. Although young children do know

that animals possess adaptive features,such as wings for flying or fins forswimming, they have little sense ofwhat would happen if the environ-ment changed. And if you ask a childfrom this age group where the firstanimals came from, you will get a va-riety of answers. Some are likely to re-spond that “God made them.” Others


By E. Margaret Evans

How Children Develop Their Concepts of Evolution

Intuition and Understanding:

Cognitive scientists are interested in the way peoplereason about the world in the

absence of expert training. Such com-monsense, or “everyday,” reasoninghas been portrayed as a limited seriesof intuitive theories about the world,each of which potentially describes adifferent kind of knowledge, such as a“naive” biology or psychology. Intuitive theories differ from scien-

tific theories in many ways, but likescientific theories they frame the waywe view the world and provide bothquestions and explanations. These arethe kinds of everyday explanations, or“hunches,” that most easily come tomind when we try to figure out whatis going on in the world. Over the past 15 years or so, my

colleagues and I have begun to mapout the emergence of children’s every-day understanding of natural transfor-mations such as metamorphosis andevolutionary change. In the process wehave interviewed hundreds of childrenand parents from different religiousbackgrounds. To make sure the chil-dren really think through the issues,we ask them unexpected questions andgive them unusual tasks. We also com-pare their intuitions about naturaltransformations, such as seasonalchange, with their intuitions about artificial transformations, such as themaking of chairs or toys. What we have found is that chil-

dren are subject to some prevalentcognitive biases about the biologicalworld: namely, that species are stableand unchanging and that animate be-havior is goal directed and intentional.Left unaddressed, these biases often

may reply that the first animals came“from someplace else” or that they“came out of the ground.” In otherwords, they appear to think the ani-mals were always here on Earth, butsomeplace else, where they could notbe seen. This idea may be rooted ineveryday experience, such as the burstof new life we see each spring after thesnow melts or the first rains arrive.

Eight- to 10-year-olds

From about third grade to the end offourth grade (ages 8 to 10), there is agradual shift in children’s reasoning.This age group is more likely to acceptsome kinds of radical biologicalchange, such as metamorphosis. Inter-estingly, whatever their family back-ground, most children in this agerange endorse the idea that the firstkinds of animals were “made by some-one,” and often that someone is God. One reason for this belief is that,

unlike their younger siblings, this agegroup is beginning to think about existential questions. They are morelikely to know about death and to understand that animal kinds are noteternal—that they were not alwayshere on Earth, nor will they continueto be on Earth. Intuitively understand-ing the human as an intentional manufacturer of new tools, they transfer that understanding to objectsthat have arisen naturally, such as new species.Simultaneously, children in this age

range are starting to integrate differentkinds of causes into a complex causalstructure. Preschool children, seeing“Josh” knock over a glass and break it,are perfectly capable of reasoning

Illustration by Angie Fox/Explore Evolution

about the immediate cause: “Josh didn’tsee the glass.” But if you ask them tothink a little harder about “why” Joshknocked over the glass, they havemore difficulty. Eight- to 10-year-olds are better

able to engage in a more complicatedreasoning process: Josh knocked overthe glass “because he was in a badmood ... because he didn’t get lunch ...because he forgot his lunch money”...and so on until they arrive at the mostdistant or original cause. This sort ofreasoning is necessary for understand-ing the origins of novel animal kinds:Why and how did something comeinto existence in the first place?

Ten- to 12-year-olds

On the surface, at least, the beliefs ofpreadolescents (ages 10 to 12) are sim-ilar to the beliefs of the adult membersof their community, with the samepercentage endorsing evolutionist andcreationist beliefs. Children exposed toevidence that animals change—meta-morphosis, adaptive variation withinspecies, fossils—are the most likely toaccept major evolutionary changes.They will agree that one kind of ani-mal could have origin ated from earlierand very different kinds of livingthings, although they are likely to ex-hibit many misconceptions about evo-lution. For these children who takethe perspective of a naturalist, this is


the beginning of a more complex understanding of the fundamental in-terrelationships among all living things. Conversely, children who know the

least about natural history and fossilsand who go to schools that endorseBiblical literalism are likely to endorsethe idea that God created each kind ofanimal with its own unique “essence.”Interestingly, these beliefs seem to varydepending on the organism. For exam-ple, many children and their parentsagree that butterflies and frogs evolve,but state that God created mammals—and, in particular, humans.

Older youth and adults

Adolescents (ages 12 and up) are oftenready to assimilate basic evolutionaryconcepts, although their everyday intuitions continue to undermine theteaching of Darwinian theory. Alongwith many adults, most endorse pre-Darwinian theories of evolutionarychange. This makes it difficult forthem to grasp contemporary Darwin-ian concepts. For example, when a visitor interviewed for Explore Evolu-tion was asked to explain the changesin the beaks of Galápagos finches, shesaid, “Well, in order to survive, theirbody parts had to adjust to certainthings, similar to the way giraffes’necks probably grew long as theyreached for the plants at the top of the trees, so the beak grew longer to

On January 14, 2006, Explore Evolution opened at the Univer-

sity of Michigan’s Exhibit Museum of Natural History, Ann Arbor. The museum was one of six U.S. sciencecenters, led by the University of Ne-braska State Museum, that developedthe permanent exhibition in partner-ship with five statewide 4-H organiza-tions (see Spotlights, ASTC Dimen-sions, November/December 2005).The exhibition highlights the currentresearch of seven evolutionary scien-tists, including University of Michiganpaleontologist Philip Gingerich, left.

The debut in Ann Arbor was alsothe impetus for a special winter semester on evolution in the univer -sity’s school of Literature, Science,and Arts (LSA), organized by Exhibit Museum director Amy Harris. Publicevents include a speaker series, symposia, films, author readings, ex-hibit openings, teacher trainings, andfamily events.To learn more about Explore Evolu-

tion, visit www.explore-evolution.unl.edu/. For details on the LSA semesterprogram, visit www.lsa.umich.edu/lsatheme/exploreevolution/.

Photo courtesy University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology

Exploring Evolution in Michigan

deal with the tougher seeds.”Many adolescents and adults believe

that adaptations acquired over the life-time of an individual animal can be inherited by future generations. SuchLamarckian views appear to have theirroots in these respondents’ intuitiveunderstanding of the way humans fitin with or adapt to their environment. Education researchers have found

that science learners also tend to thinkof evolution as growth and improve-ment over time. Many adults and children accept the extinction of thedinosaurs, for example, but are lesswilling to generalize this understand-ing to include contemporary species,especially humans. Despite scientificconsensus to the contrary, they appearto hold to the idea that species contin-ually adapt to new environments anddo not really become extinct. The problem may be less one of

ignorance than of existential concern.For many people, the idea that hu-mans and other species alive todaymight cease to exist is difficult to contemplate. One parent expressed herconcern thus: “I don’t know what tobelieve. I just want my kid to go toheaven.” A visitor to the Explore Evolution exhibition commented, “The Bible says, ‘God created theheavens and the earth.’ It also explainsthat He created mankind in his image.To me it is comforting to know whereI’m going when I die..... Where will


Evolution has been a topic of investigation at the Museum of

Science, Boston (MOS) ever since Harvard geologist Louis Agassiz critiqued Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species at an 1860 meetingof the museum’s precursor, the BostonSociety of Natural History. (For therecord, Agassiz disagreed with Darwin’s conclusions.) Recent polls showing the level of

public misunderstanding about Darwin-ian evolution were thus no surprise tomuseum staff. Since 2003, they hadbeen planning to upgrade an existingexhibit on the topic. The result, HumanEvolution, opened in late 2005. Withmore elements still to come, the exhibi-tion allows visitors to explore the evi-dence for the development of our ownspecies through inter action with fossils,genetic research, and living animals. The driving force behind the project is

MOS manager of discovery spaces LucyKirshner. As a child growing up in Mas-sachusetts, Kirshner was encouraged topursue her own inquiries, she says. “Welived outside as much as possible andscrutinized the size, shape, and changesin all sorts of living things.” The experi-ence taught her that asking good ques-tions is as important as finding answers.After beginning her museum career atMichigan’s Ann Arbor Hands-On Muse-um in 1981, she came to MOS in 1985.Kirshner’s inspiration for Human

Evolution was the many breakthroughsachieved in genetic research over thepast decade, including the HumanGenome Project. “Evolution and the genetic mechanisms at its heart are challenging to teach and difficult tograsp,” she says, “but public under-standing is critical.” Housed in the museum’s Human

Body Connection discovery space, theexhibition features a variety of inter -active exhibits. Museum-goers learnmore about themselves as they comparesimilarities and differences betweennewly hatched chicks and humans andobserve the behavior of live primates (inthis case, a family of cotton-top tamarinmonkeys). “This is not dusty, but livinghistory,” Kirshner says. “Visitors who

watch our tamarins care for their children will relate to other species in awhole new way.” At the Hominid Skull Field Station,

museum-goers can play a computer-based game to learn about differencesamong our extinct early relatives—ex-ploring where each skull was found, whodis covered it, and what each reveals. Ina related component, they can also learnwhat jaws and teeth reveal about an early hominid’s diet, age at death, andrelationship to modern humans. In the genetics area, computer-

generated animations demonstrate howDNA turns into proteins in real time. Ataste experiment with the harmless butbitter chemical PTC lets visitors exploretheir own genetic inheritance, and with aspin of a 4-foot dial, they can choose anorganism and follow its branching evolu-tion to see how it is related to others.Throughout, the exhibition presents

the evidence for evolution and showshow scientists have interpreted it, allow-ing visitors to draw their own conclu-sions. But the museum stands clearly forthe science. When people ask about intelligent design, Kirshner says she explains the difference between ID, a“philosophical construct,” and scientifictheories, “well-documented explana-tions that have grown out of careful experiments, supported by evidencethat is open to scrutiny and test.” ■

Gail Jennes is communi cations officer atthe Museum of Science, Boston. TheHuman Evolution exhibition is part of aninstitution-wide natural and life sciencesinitiative that will include hosting theDarwin exhibition in 2007.

Living Evolution: A Passion for Science Communication

By Gail Jennes

Lucy Kirshner, manager of discovery spaces at the Museum of Science, introduces visitors to the PTCtaste test, a harmless indicator of genetic inheritance.Photo by Eric Workman/Museum of Science, Boston

you go when you die?...” These kinds of findings illustrate

the importance of developing exhibitsthat speak directly to visitors’ every-day intuitions about the biologicalworld. In many ways, evolutionarytheory is counterintuitive: It presentsa world that is dynamic and ever-changing and, even more critically tosome, a world that apparently lackspurpose and design. Perhaps museumscould tackle such concerns moreopenly, pointing out that while evolu-tion does not (and cannot) explainthe “final cause” of why we are hereon Earth, it can address the secondarycauses or mechanisms that explainhow we got where we are. ■

Related readings• Evans, E. Margaret. “Cognitive andContextual Factors in the Emergenceof Diverse Belief Systems: CreationVersus Evolution.” Cognitive Psych -ology, Vol. 42, Issue 3 (May 2001).• Rosengren, Karl S., Susan A. Gelman, Charles W. Kalish, and M. McCormick. “As Time Goes By:Children’s Early Understanding ofGrowth in Animals.” Child Develop-ment, Vol. 62, No. 6 (1991).• Bishop, Beth A., and Charles W.Anderson. “Student Conceptions ofNatural Selection and Its Role in Evolution.” Journal of Research in Sci-ence Teaching, Vol. 27, No. 5 (1990).• Poling, Devereaux A., and E. Margaret Evans. “Are Dinosaurs theRule or the Exception? DevelopingConcepts of Death and Extinction.”Cognitive Development, Vol. 19, Issue 3 (2004).

E. Margaret Evans is a research investi-gator at the University of Michigan’sCenter for Human Growth and Devel-opment, Ann Arbor. This article isadapted with permission from her chap-ter, “Teaching and Learning about Evo-lution,” in Judy Diamond (ed.), CarlZimmer, E. Margaret Evans, Linda Allison, and Sarah Disbrow, Virus andthe Whale: Exploring Evolution inCreatures Small and Large, © 2006,National Science Teachers Association.To order, visit http://store.nsta.org.


READINGS• “Breakthrough of the Year: Evolution in Action.” Science,Vol. 310, 23 December 2005 (online at www.sciencemag.org).• Darwin, Charles. The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online. (Available free at http://darwin-online.org.uk/).• Dennett, Daniel C. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution andthe Meanings of Life. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996.• Dunckel, Betty A., S. Ellis, B.J. MacFadden, Lynn D. Dierk-ing, Linda Silver, J. Kisiel, and Judy Koke. A Research Partner-ship: Investigating Visitor Understanding of Evolution. Panelpresentation, ASTC Annual Conference, Richmond, Va., October 2005.• Forrest, Barbara, and Paul R. Gross. Creationism’s TrojanHorse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 2003.• Gould, Stephen Jay. “Nonoverlapping Magisteria.” NaturalHistory 106, March 1997 (online at www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html).• Hoffstadt, Rita Murkherjee. “The Evolution Debate: Poten-tial Roles for Science Centers, Children’s Museums and

Natural History Museums,” Informal Learning Review 74, September-October 2005.• Mooney, Chris, and Matthew C. Nisbet. “Undoing Darwin.”Columbia Journalism Review, September/October 2005 (on-line at www.cjr.org/).• National Research Council. National Science EducationStandards. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press,1996 (pdf at www.nap.edu/catalog/4962.html).• Orr, H. Allen. “Devolution.” The New Yorker, May 30, 2005(online at www.newyorker.com).• Steering Committee on Science and Creationism. Scienceand Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition. Washington, D.C.: National Acade-mies Press, 1999 (pdf at www.nap.edu/catalog/6024.html).• Talbot, Margot. “Darwin on Trial.” The New Yorker,December 5, 2005. • West, Robert Mac. “The Lay of the Land: The Current Context for Communicating Evolution in Natural History Museums,” Informal Learning Review 69, November-December 2004.

EVOLUTION RESOURCES The following entries represent references and other resources cited by contributors to this issue.

WEB SITES

ASTC Resource Center: Evolutionwww.astc.org/resource/education/evolution.htmIncludes the “Statement on Science” adopted by ASTC’s executive committee in September 2005, as well as updatedlinks to what member museums are doing in the area of evolutionary science.

Galápagos: Educationhttp://pubs.nsta.org/galapagos/resources/page1.htmlDeveloped by the National Science Teachers Association(NSTA), in conjunction with the Smithsonian Institution andthe 1999 IMAX film Galápagos, the site supports teachingand learning about biology, ecology, geology, and the unify-ing concepts of science.

Howard Hughes Medical Institute Holiday Lectures www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/On-demand videos of researchers Sean B. Carroll and DavidM. Kingsley delivering HHMI’s December 2005 Holiday Lectures, Evolution: Constant Change and Common Threads.

National Academies of Science (NAS)http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/Reports, statements, and papers on evolution education andresearch, produced by NAS and other sources.

National Center for Science Education (NCSE)www.ncseweb.orgA central resource for background on evolution, creationism,and ID and news of anti-evolution activities worldwide. Linksto Kitzmiller proceedings can be found here.

PollingReport.com (Science and Nature)www.pollingreport.com/science.htmSummaries of 2000–2006 Gallup, Harris, CNN, and otherpolls related to origin of human life, stem cell research,biotech, and more.

The Talk Origins Archivewww.talkorigins.orgUsenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate ofbiological and physical origins.

Understanding Evolutionhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/Devoted to the science and history of evolutionary biology,this site is a collaborative project of the University of California Museum of Paleontology and NCSE.

New Journal to Address EvolutionLaunching this spring, Museums & Social Issues, a newbiannual journal published by Left Coast Press Inc. andedited by Kris Morissey of Michigan State University, willprovide a forum for considering and discussing social issues and the role of museums in engaging those issues. Vol. 1, No. 1, “Museums and the Public Understanding

of Evolution,” will have an introduction by NCSE’s Eugenie Scott. Among the planned articles will be• Diamond, Judy, and Judy Scotchmoor. “Exhibiting Evolution.” • Fraser, John. “Group Identity, Protest, and Evolution.” • Scott, Monique, and Ellen Giusti. “Designing HumanEvolution Exhibitions: Insights from Exhibitions and Audiences.”• Spiegel, Amy, E. Margaret Evans, Wendy Gram, andJudy Diamond. “Museum Visitors’ Understanding of Evolution.”


In a September 2005 letter to theManchester Guardian, a thoughtfulreader responded to an article the

U.K. newspaper had published on theevolution/creationism controversy:“Children should not be taught creationism, which is irrational, butneither should they be taught that scientific investigation is our only toolof thought. Imagina tion can also bringus close to the unknowable powers ofthe universe, of which we are a part....”This quote mirrors the two trends,

or strands of thought, that are current-ly being played out in the museumworld. One involves a move toward increased cultural sensitivity and understanding, adopting the view thatit is not only important but essentialfor our society to understand and empathize with groups that may havevery different views from our own.The other involves the current debatein which creationists and proponentsof intelligent design either oppose theteaching of evolution in schools andother educational settings, such as mu-seums, or propose that evolutionshould be presented as if it were an alternative view, alongside such viewsas intelligent design. A question arises for museums from

examining these two cultural trends:Is intelligent design (or creationism)one of those “alternate world views”that ought to be given a voice in a museum setting? If so, in what type ofmuseum and in what context? And ifnot, why not? Although this topic is one that

affects all museums, natural historymuseums appear to be affected by it in a special way. On the one hand,the ownership of collections from the

natural world requires them to addressevolution in talking about their devel-opment, their origins, and so forth.On the other hand, such collectionsoften contain artifacts from non-Western cultures that require culturallysensitive presentation. It’s interesting that at the same time

natural history museums are champi-oning the science of evolution as documented in their collections fromthe natural world, they are also attempting to undo and rethink theiroutmoded presentation of human cultures, with its overtones of SocialDarwinism. (That now-discreditedmovement—promulgated by a Britishphilosopher, Herbert Spencer, whofreely borrowed Darwin’s ideas for hisown purposes—held that you can tracehuman evolution by looking at presentcultures and lining them up on a continuum from the so-called “primi-tive” to the so-called “more evolved.”)But natural history museums are

not alone in this discussion. Museumsthat present the art or cultural tradi-tions of non-Western societies are alsoaffected. For example, the NationalMuseum of the American Indian at theSmithsonian has been criticized bysome for presenting the origin storiesof various tribal groups with little addi-tional commentary from historians, ge-ographers, archaeologists, and otherswho might explain the Native Ameri-can presence from a Western perspec-tive. Is this a failure on the part of themuseum or an appropriate stance,given its focus and mission? Questions like this require that all

of us, as museum professionals, develop a broad range of thinking toolsand skills. Among these are a more

nuanced understanding of the natureof cultural differences, as well as anunderstanding of the concept of“world view”—i.e., the idea that dif-ferent groups hold fundamentally dif-ferent understandings of things likecausality, time, what is living, what isnot living, how and why we came tobe, and that these views work prettywell for those who hold them.We also need to develop a clear un-

derstanding of one of the key pillars ofour own world view—the scientificmethod and its processes. We need torecognize what its characteristics are,what kinds of realities it is designed toelucidate, and what it cannot. Finally, we need to be able to think

about these questions in their societaland civil contexts: about where andhow it is appropriate to be inclusiveand where it is appropriate to be moreselective in what is presented in a mu-seum context.All of these questions have an im-

pact on how museums develop andview their missions, and thus, in turn,on issues of collecting, interpretation,and exhibition. And they also affecthow we educate both new museumprofessionals and provide professionaldevelopment for current staff. ■

Gretchen Jennings is director of education for interpretation and visitor experience at the National Museum ofAmerican History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. An extended version of this essay, whichserved as her introduction to a 2005ASTC Annual Conference session, willappear in John H. Falk, et al. (eds.), InPrinciple, In Practice, Lanham, Md.:AltaMira, in press.

or, Can Science Explain Everything?

Science as a World View,

By Gretchen Jennings


22–25 Museums and the Web 2006. Albuquerque, New Mexico. Details: www.archimuse.com

29 Solar Eclipse: Stories from the Path of Totality. Nine-hour coverage of the eclipse via satellite and the Web, broadcast live from Turkey. Hosted by the Exploratorium, San Francisco. Details: www. exploratorium.edu/eclipse

30– “Museums and Apr. 1 Spirituality.” Workshop hosted by the Cultural Resource Management Program, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Details: www.uvcs. uvic.ca/crmp

19–21 Astronomy from the Ground Up. Tucson, Arizona. First in a series of NSF-funded workshops organized by the National Optical Astronomy Observa- tory, the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, and ASTC. Details: www. astrosociety.org/afgu

24–26 Interactivity 2006. “Growing Healthy Kids, Museums and Communi- ties.”Annual conference of the Association of Children’s Museums. Hosted by the Children’s Museum, Boston, Massachusetts. Details: www.childrensmuseums.org

27– American Association of May 1 Museums Annual Meeting. “A Centennial of Ideas: Exploring Tomorrow’s Museums.” Boston, Massachusetts. ASTC will host a luncheon at the Museum of Science on Thursday, April 27, noon– 2 p.m.; event #01, $50. Details: www.aam-us.org

Calendar

* Information on ASTC RAP sessions is available at www.astc.org/profdev/. For updated events listings, click on ‘Calendar’ at www.astc.org.

10–14 6th ASPAC Conference. “Engaging and Communi- cating Science.” Hosted by Scitech Discovery Centre, Perth, Western Australia. Details: www.scitech.org.au

12–13 ASTC RAP Session.* “Real Tools, Real Science, & Real Living Things: A Collaborative RAP on New Exhibit Strategies.” Hosted by the Huntington Libary, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens and the California Science Center, Los Angeles.

25–27 CASC Annual Confer- ence. Ottawa, Ontario. Hosted by the Canada Science and Technology Museum and the Canadian Museum of Nature. Details: www.canadiansciencecentres. ca/conferences.htm

8–10 Ecsite Annual Conference. Hosted by Technopolis, the Flemish Science Centre, Mechelen, Belgium. Details: www.technopolis.be

24–25 ASTC RAP Session.* “Flexible Spaces Make Dynamic Places.” Hosted by the Buffalo Museum of Science, Buffalo, New York.

25–29 VSA Annual Conference. “Counting Visitors or Making Visitors Count.” Grand Rapids, Michigan. Details: www.visitorstudies. org/conference

28–31 ASTC Annual Confer- ence. “Appropriate Growth:

Sustaining Institutional Advancement.” Hosted by

the Louisville Science Center, Louisville, Kentucky. Details: www.astc.org/

conference

JULY

MARCH MAY

OCTOBER

JUNE

APRIL

Upgraded ASTC Connect HostsDiscussions

If you haven’t been there yet, it’s definitely time to visit ASTC’snewly revamped online professionaldevelopment site, ASTC Connect. Located at www.astc.org/astc_connect,the site has been reconfigured usingopen-source software called Moodle toinclude discussion forums, live chats,and regular RSS feeds of breaking science news and images. Along with the free “Science Center

Basics” tutorial, a self-paced, un -moderated orientation to the field,ASTC Connect now offers occasionalmoderated workshops. Recent sessionshave included “Creating ExhibitionCase Studies,” led by museum con-sultant and exhibit designer KathleenMcLean; “Fostering Dialogue aboutScience Policy,” led by Andrea Ban -delli, project manager for Ecsite’s DeCiDe project; and “UnderstandingVisitors’ Ideas: Cosmic Conversa-tions,” led by Mary Dussault of theHarvard-Smithsonian AstrophysicalObservatory. In March, a “New Models” forum

organized by John Jacobsen of WhiteOak Associates and David Chese-brough, soon to be of COSI Colum-bus (see “People,” page 20), will openwith a conversation focused on new-style libraries; Marsha Semmel ofIMLS will serve as moderator. Com-ing soon are workshops developed inconjunction with the AstronomicalSociety of the Pacific’s Astronomy fromthe Ground Up project, as well as twoNew York Hall of Science projects:Volunteers TryScience (VolTS) and LifeChanges (on evolution). The site will also host book discus-

sion groups associated with ASTC’snew IMLS-funded Designed for Learn-ing project, which will support thesharing of best practices in museumplanning and design through the pub-lication of two books—one on “visitorvoices” in exhibits, the other on “environments for learning.”

ASTC Notes

ASTC Notes ASTC Dimensions • March/April 2006 17

Online forums based on ASTC Annual Conference sessions are a possibility for the future. To proposea discussion forum or to find outabout using ASTC Connect for proj-ect dissemination, contact WendyPollock, [email protected].

National ScienceBoard’s 2020 Vision

Last November, the National Science Board (NSB), the policy -

making arm of the U.S. National Science Foundation, released a draftversion of a strategic plan for NSF’sfuture, 2020 Vision for the NationalScience Foundation, and invited publiccomment. ASTC’s Advocacy Com-mittee, working with others, took alead role in crafting and submitting aresponse on behalf of the science cen-ter field. The final version was re-leased December 28 (in pdf, NSB-05-142, at www.nsf.gov/publications). In 2020 Vision, the board outlines

four “near-term goals” that NSF canachieve to help maintain U.S. viabili-ty in the global scientific enterprise.Science centers and museums arespecifically mentioned in connectionwith Goal 3, the evaluation of currenteducation programs and the develop-ment of strategies to increase their

impact. Noting their value as a sourceof further learning for many Ameri-can parents, students, and teachers,the board wrote, “These ‘informal science’ institutions have the abilityboth to improve the teaching of S&Ein schools and to serve as naturalbridges among academia, the generalpublic, and our school communities.”ASTC is grateful to the NSB—and

particularly to board member KathySullivan of COSI Columbus—forsupporting the role of museums in“fostering the scientific literacy of allour citizens.”

ExFiles Project Funded

Capturing shared knowledge is keyto the vitality of any organiza-

tion. But for one segment of the in-formal science education enterprise—exhibition design—access to accumu-lated knowledge has been difficult. To help fill that gap, ASTC is

launching ExFiles: An Online ScienceCommunity. The goal of the three-yearproject, newly funded by a $725,000grant from NSF, is to create a conven-ient system whereby prototypers, con-tent developers, evaluators, graphicdesigners, project managers, fabricators, and other exhibit practi-tioners can not only retrieve timelyinformation for their projects but also

Welcome to ASTC The following new members were approved by ASTC’s Membership Committee in October 2005.Contact information is available in the About ASTC section of the ASTC web site, www.astc.org.

SCIENCE CENTER AND MUSEUM MEMBERS• Marinelife Center of Juno Beach Inc., Juno Beach, Florida. Adjacent to a major sea turtle nesting area, this organiza-tion’s new Loggerhead Marinelife Center, due to open in mid2006, will include a visitor center, marine laboratory, sea turtleveterinary hospital, and auditorium.• Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester,Manchester, U.K. Occupying the world’s oldest surviving passen-ger railway station and other 19th-century buildings, the museumopened its new Power Hall and Xperiment, an interactive galleryfor children under 5, in 2005. • North Carolina Transportation Museum, Spencer, NorthCarolina. Located on the grounds of Southern Railway’s steam locomotive repair facility, the museum offers 150,000 square feetof visual exhibits and hands-on activities, as well as half-hour trainrides around the site.

• Orpheum Children’s Science Museum, Champaign, Illinois. Entering the third phase of renovations on its 1914vaudeville theater home, this science museum features an outdoorDino Dig, a 10-foot water flume, and a tug-boat simulator. • Zig Zag Centro Interactivo de Ciencias, Zacatecas,Mexico. Serving more than 35,000 visitors in its first six monthsof operation, this new science center’s major exhibits are spreadamong a campus of eight buildings.

SUSTAINING MEMBERS

• Crossroads Learning & Entertainment, Stockholm, Sweden

• Guard-Lee Inc., Apopka, Florida• Kraemer Design & Production Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio• The Mad Science Group, Montréal, Canada.

contribute to, comment on, and cri-tique a database of shared information. Principal investigator for ExFiles is

Wendy Pollock, ASTC’s director of re-search, publications, and exhibitions;museum consultant Kathleen McLeanis co-PI. Plans call for establishing acore contributor team, building a criti-cal mass of valued content, designingaccessible site features, recognizing thework of contributors, offering confer-ence workshops, and building partner-ships with related organizations.

Film Groups Merge

Effective January 1, the GiantScreen Theater Association and

the Large Format Cinema Associationhave joined forces to create the GiantScreen Cinema Association (GSCA),headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. An interim board, including ASTC

museum directors Joanna Haas(Carnegie Science Center), Doug King(Saint Louis Science Center), andEmlyn Koster (Liberty Science Cen-ter), is overseeing initial operations ofthe new network. Elections for GSCAboard members will be held in March,and a new board will be in place forthe organization’s first annual confer-ence, to be held March 29–31 in Los Angeles. For more details, visitwww.giantscreencinema.com. ■


21ST CENTURY RENAISSANCE—On October 30, Da Vinci DiscoveryCenter opened its 29,000-square-footcenter on the campus of Cedar CrestCollege, Allentown, Pennsylvania (seeASTC Dimensions, January/February2005). With many eastern Pennsylvaniacompanies reporting a lack of skilledworkers, the center hopes to encourageyoung people to pursue careers in sci-ence and technology. To demonstrate the possibilities, staff

have developed Da Vinci in Our Com-munity, a workstation in the main concourse featuring rotating exhibitsthat spotlight nearby corporationsknown for their innovation and creativi-ty. From there, visitors can explore six inquiry-based galleries: What Hurts?(health science), Watt’s Up? (energy),What’s Alive? (organisms), What’s theMatter? (atoms and matter), What onEarth? (earth science), and What Works?(machines).To further encourage young scientists,

the center administers the Da Vinci In-stitute, a professional development pro-gram for teachers. Throughout the year,the Institute’s Da Vinci Fellows, selectedelementary school teachers fromthroughout the region, learn how toprovide inquiry-based instruction to all children, includingthose who may not typically succeed inscience.Major funding for the $7.65 million

facility came from Cedar Crest College,Beall and Linny Fowler, and the Com-monwealth of Pennsylvania.

Details: Dennis Zehner, public relations/marketing specialist, [email protected]

By Christine Ruffo

EXPLODED PARTICLES—Fouryears in the making, the new Germanscience center Phaeno opened inWolfsburg on November 24. ZahaHadid, winner of the 2004 PritzkerArchitecture Prize, designed the concrete-and-glass structure, whichrests on conical supports 23 feet abovea street-level public plaza. From the outside, the science center

resembles a stylized spacecraft liftingoff from the city’s core of modernstructures. Inside, its 30,000 squarefeet of activity space is filled withmodeled forms reminiscent of craters,caverns, and plateaus; the New YorkTimes called the plan “a sequence ofexploded particles, where curved floorslead to loosely defined exhibit areasscattered like marbles around the hall.” Visitors to Phaeno (the name comes

from the German word for “phenome-non”) ascend an escalator in one of thecones—others house a bookstore and a theater—to begin their journeythrough the exhibition space. “We de-liberately set no agenda,” says directorWolfgang Guthardt. “Each paves hisor her own individual way.” The experimental landscape is di-

vided into nine loosely defined themeareas: Life, Light and Sight, Move-ment, Wind and Weather, Micro andMacro, Energy, Matter, Games, andInformation. Together, they house 250inter active exhibits designed and builtby Ansel Associates of California. Primary funding for the 80-million-

euro project came from the city ofWolfsburg. Private donors includedVolkswagen, EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG, and other localcompanies.

Details: www.phaeno.de

ECOLOGY UP CLOSE—In 2003,three New England science centers—the EcoTarium,Worcester, Massa-chusetts; the Children’s Museumof Maine, Portland; and ECHO atthe Leahy Center for LakeChamplain, Burlington, Vermont—joined forces to form the Environ-mental Exhibit Collaborative (EEC). With an $840,000 grant from

Jane’s Trust, EEC undertook to devel-op three 1,200-square-foot, inter activeexhibitions on regional ecology thatcould be made available to small andmid-sized museums. Two of those exhibitions, Turtle Travels and TreeHouses, are now on tour.Turtle Travels opened at the Eco-

Tarium in February 2005 and is nowat ECHO. Visitors move along a life-sized board game to discover what it’slike to be a turtle in different habitats.Activities include crawling under alive-turtle enclosure, trying on a tur-tle’s shell, helping turtles to safety,and following a sea turtle as it swims. Tree Houses opened in January at

the EcoTarium. The exhibition features two indoor tree houses con-nected by a walkway. Approaching thefirst house, visitors can scan the treesfor animals (specimens from the col-lections), tracks, chew marks, andother clues linked with tree dwellers.In the second house, visitors can lightup an animal image and hear thesound associated with that creature.Other activities include a “Build yourown tree house” area, a computerizedforestry game, and a gallery of treehouses from around the world.A third collaborative project, Attack

of the Bloodsuckers, about lampreys,mosquitos, and other blood-suckingcreatures, is under development.

Montshire Museum of Sci-ence, Norwich, Vermont, a foundingmember of the TEAMS collaborative,provided advisory support, and addi-tional funding came from the Cabot Family Charitable Trust and IMLS.After their EEC tours, the exhibitionswill be available for rental.

Details: Sally Anne Giedrys,commu nications manager, [email protected]

Visitors to Da Vinci Discovery Center treata virtual patient in What Hurts?Photo courtesyDa Vinci Discovery Center of Science and Technology

Spotlights

Phaeno, designed by prize-winning architect Zaha Hadid, opened in Germanylast November. Photo by Klemens Ortmeyer


SPINNING AN EXHIBITION—Inan unusual design process, the NorthMuseum of Natural History &Science, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, invited visitors to join in developmentof a multidisciplinary temporary exhi-bition, Spirals: Whirls Without End,inspired by the prevalence of spiralforms in nature, science, and art. The project began last June with an

exhibition of images that progressedfrom microscopic and invisible spirallike spirelli and DNA, to animal horns

The last Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS) awardsgiven in 2005 were also the most prestigious. COSI Toledo,

Toledo, Ohio, was one of three U.S. museums to receive the nation’shighest honor for the museum field, the National Award for MuseumService. “From college fairs to camp-ins, from one-time experiencesto multiyear programs, COSI Toledo is dedicated to communityservice that reveals to the world a world of science,” wrote theawards committee. COSI officials received their award, which in-cludes a $10,000 cash prize, at a January 30 White House ceremony.

2005 SEPA GRANTSThe following U.S. ASTC members received 2005 Science EducationPartnership Award (SEPA) grants from the National Institutes ofHealth’s National Center for Research Resources:

• Children’s Museum of Houston, Texas: $1,319,946 for a new exhibition, Powerplay: Kids Measuring Their Bodies’ Responses toPhysical Challenges.• Exploratorium, San Francisco: (1) $535,296 Phase II grant for the creation and dissemination of a comprehensive array of biomed-ically relevant, image-based materials generated by the museum’sSEPA-funded Microscope Imaging Station (MIS), and (2) $1,179,121for the Caltech-Exploratorium Summer Teacher Institute in the Life Sciences.• Great Lakes Science Center, Cleveland, Ohio: $1,315,503 forMapping the Future of Bioengineering & Technology, a permanentexhibition and related programs on biomedical engineering.

• Marian Koshland Science Museum of the National Academy ofSciences, Washington, D.C.: $1,348,670 for a new exhibition, Dis-eases and Decisions: The Current Science of Emerging Threats.• Maryland Science Center, Baltimore: $1,361,048 for an exhibitionand update center, Cellular Universe: The Promise of Stem Cells.• Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI), Portland:$1,335,603 to create, in collaboration with the Small Museum Research Collaborative (SMRC), four small, bilingual (English andSpanish) touring exhibitions focusing on current clinical research innutrition and physical activity and its applications to personal andfamily wellness.• In addition to these direct SEPA grants, Discovery World Muse-um, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Yale University’s Peabody Museumof Natural History, New Haven, Connecticut, will serve as partnersin SEPA grants awarded to academic institutions.

The Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, Fort Worth,Texas, was awarded $200,000 by the Bank of America. The grant,part of an annual Neighborhood Excellence Initiative Awards pro-gram honoring the U.S. communities in which the bank does busi-ness, will be used to support general operations at the museum.

The National Maritime Center, Norfolk, Virginia, received twoawards from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA): $29,000 to provide Ocean Exploration Alliance training tomiddle and high school teachers, and $24,900 to develop an exhibition about tsunamis and NOAA’s related research. ■

Grants & Awards

and sunflowers, to spirals in human art,tools, and toys, and finally to spirals inspace, such as galaxies and black holes.Visitors were asked to look for spi-

rals in their daily lives and bring themin for display. A wide array of items ap-peared, including an antique clock witha spiral fuse, a Mason jar of preservedfiddlehead ferns, and even a volunteer’sbaby curls. A hands-on exhibition in-corporating these objects, as well as ex-amples of spirals from the museum’scollections, opened in September 2005and will continue through April. On display are a 14-foot spiral wave

and a tornado machine designed by alocal artist, an Archimedes screw, and aMagic Globe on which visitors can follow the paths of hurricanes using in-formation supplied by NOAA. Smallerexhibits throughout the museum include seashells, horns, and a snailaquarium. After Spirals closes, some of the ex-

hibits will move to a smaller gallery for

A visitor navigates the game board inTurtle Travels. Photo courtesy EcoTarium

The 14-foot spiral wave in Spiralscaptivates a pair of visitors. Photo courtesyNorth Museum of Natural History & Science

permanent display. Funding for the$100,000 project was provided by theLancaster Community Foundation, theJohn Frederick Steinman Foundation,the Armstrong Foundation, and theKellogg Company.

Details: Margie Marino, executivedirector, [email protected] ■

20 March/April 2006 • ASTC Dimensions People

Association of Science-Technology Centers1025 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 500Washington, DC 20005-6310Address Service Requested

Non Profit Org.

U.S. Postage

PA I DWashington, D.C.

Permit No. 537

The new executive director of theDNA EpiCenter, New London, Connecticut, is Abby L. Demars.Formerly senior scientist at the sciencecenter, DeMars had been serving as interim executive director since JeanCaron departed last August.

Suzanne Lenz is the new director of development for the Children’s Muse-um of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, NewHampshire. Lenz was previously mem-bership director for the WadsworthAtheneum, in Hartford, Connecticut.

Kevin F. Prihod is the new presi -dent and CEO of the New Detroit Science Center, Detroit, Michigan. A former trustee of the science center,Prihod had served as chief science officer since March 2004; he replacestrustee Shawn M. Kahle, presidentand CEO since April 2002.

David Chesebrough, formerly president and CEO of the Buffalo Museum of Science, becomes presidentand CEO of Ohio’s COSI Columbus,effective April 1. He succeeds Kathy

Sullivan, who has assumed her newrole as science advisor to COSI. Vicepresident Carroll Simon will serve asacting president and CEO in Buffalo.

Both good news and sad from the Sci-ence Discovery Center at State Univer-sity of New York (SUNY) College ofOneonta: SUNY physics and astrono-my professor Hugh Gallagher hasassumed the directorship, a role ablyfilled since 1990 by founder/directorand former SUNY professor Albert J.Read. A lifelong “tinkerer,” Al Readcreated the science center in a reno -vated space in the basement of thecampus physics building. He was amentor to many in our field and con-tributed to both the Cheapbook seriesand ASTC Dimensions.The sad news isthat Hazel Read, whom many knewfrom her participation at ASTC confer-ences, died on January 20. She was a true partner to her husband in hiswork; in 2000, SUNY awarded thecouple its Distinguished Service Award.

The new head of the Southern AfricanAssociation of Science & TechnologyCentres (SAASTEC) is Alfred Tsipa,

programs manager at Unizul ScienceCentre, Richards Bay, South Africa.Also elected were vice presidentMichael Peter and secretary-treasurer Graham Darling.

The Museum of Science (MOS),Boston, has appointed two leaders forits fledgling National Center for Tech-nological Literacy (NCTL): YvonneSpicer, formerly director of careerand technical education for the New-ton, Massachusetts public schools, isassociate director for formal education(K–12), and Lawrence Bell, MOSsenior vice president for research, development, and production, is asso-ciate director for informal education.

ASTC welcomes Walter Stavelozas director of international relations.This new position has been created todevelop global projects and partner-ships that will expand science learningand position ASTC and its membersas recognized leaders in the public understanding of science. Walter hadserved for the past decade as executive director of Ecsite; his successor inBrussels is Catherine Franche. ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Bimonthly News Journal of the Association of Science-Technology Centers ... · Misunderstanding of...

Documents

Transcript of Bimonthly News Journal of the Association of Science-Technology Centers ... · Misunderstanding of...