I've been eavesdropping on two recent conversations in which people disagree about what happens in museums. You'll get no firm judgment from me about this stuff - I think it's all sticky, complex and interesting; and related to other recent questions about evaluating our sources of information. I'd venture that the audience for both Newsweek and the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) bears some responsibility for assessing the credibility of both the magazine and the museum.
Intelligent Design at the Smithsonian
Subscribers to an online discussion list, Museum-L, debated whether NMNH should be allowing a group called the Discovery Institute to screen a movie about intelligent design to an invitation-only audience, for a fee.
Museum-L hosted a similar dust-up earlier this year, over an employee who accused the NMNH of discriminating against him for his role in publishing an intelligent design article in a scientific journal.
Blockbusters, Entertainment, and Scholarship
Talk of the Nation hosted a conversation inspired by a new King Tut blockbuster exhibition touring the US. The discussion didn't do much more than point out the potential conflict between bringing in money and upholding scholarly standards.
Intelligent Design at the Smithsonian
Subscribers to an online discussion list, Museum-L, debated whether NMNH should be allowing a group called the Discovery Institute to screen a movie about intelligent design to an invitation-only audience, for a fee.
Museum-L hosted a similar dust-up earlier this year, over an employee who accused the NMNH of discriminating against him for his role in publishing an intelligent design article in a scientific journal.
Blockbusters, Entertainment, and Scholarship
Talk of the Nation hosted a conversation inspired by a new King Tut blockbuster exhibition touring the US. The discussion didn't do much more than point out the potential conflict between bringing in money and upholding scholarly standards.
Comments
Post a Comment