How to make a university history of science museum: Lessons from Leeds

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 (2013) 716–724

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsa

How to make a university history of science museum: Lessons from Leeds Claire L. Jones Director of the Museum of the History of Science, Technology and Medicine, School of Philosophy, Religion and History of Science, Woodhouse Lane, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Keywords: History of science Artefact Collection Science Technology Medicine University Leeds

a b s t r a c t The historic scientific collections of well-established University Museums—the Whipple at Cambridge and the Museum of the History of Science at Oxford, for example—have long served in university teaching and as objects of research for historians. But what is involved in starting such a museum from scratch? This paper offers some reflections based on recent experiences at the University of Leeds. In a relatively short period, the Leeds project has grown from a small volunteer initiative, aimed at salvaging disparate scientific collections from all over the campus, to a centrally supported and long-term scheme to provide collections care, exhibitions, and public events, as well as material for teaching and research within history and philosophy of science. Recent work undertaken on a range of Leeds objects and collections, including a camera reportedly used to take the first X-ray diffraction photographs of DNA in the 1930s and the Mark 1 prototype of the MONIAC (Monetary National Income Automatic Computer), built and designed at Leeds in 1949 to model the flow of money through the economy, highlights the national and international significance of the University’s scientific heritage as well as the project’s ambition of providing students with on-going collections care responsibilities and object-research experience. Sketching possible futures for the Leeds project, the paper considers challenges confronting the heritage sector more broadly, and how those involved with historic scientific collections can make use of new opportunities for teaching, research, and public engagement. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

When citing this paper, please use the full journal title Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

‘‘Every Professor of a branch of science requires a museum and a laboratory for his department; and accordingly in all our great universities we have independent museums of botany, palaeontology, geology, mineralogy and zoology, of anatomy, physiology, pathology and material medica, of archaeology— prehistoric and historic, classical and Christian—each subject taught having its own appropriate collection.’’ David Murray (1904, p. 275) Museums of science have long formed an important part of British universities, yet their role today within their home institution is often radically different from the position they held at the time of their establishment. University museums became almost uniformly

1

E-mail address: [email protected] Were (2010, pp. 291–304).

0039-3681/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2013.07.010

central to science teaching and research in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries as knowledge about the natural world became reclassified. Their extensive collections of specimens and samples were not primarily accumulated for their aesthetic beauty or historical significance but were used to demonstrate contemporary principles and theories in biology or chemistry through comparisons of type and composition. Thus, collections in the sciences were considered ‘‘good to think with.’’1 Increasingly changing pedagogical methods and new technologies, however, meant that such collections became largely obsolete for these purposes; today these museums and their collections provide new opportunities for teaching and research into the history of these disciplines and are increasingly valued by universities as tools through which to engage the wider public. The longstanding success of well-established

C.L. Jones / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 (2013) 716–724

University Museums—the Whipple Museum for the History of Science at Cambridge and the Museum of the History of Science at Oxford, for example—in revitalizing their collections of scientific and medical instruments provide models for how other British universities may view and use their collections. Indeed, both the Whipple and Oxford’s Museum of the History of Science were integral to the foundation of the history and philosophy of science as an academic discipline following World War II and have played a vital role in shaping the discipline ever since.2 Yet, as this paper will chart, there is an alternative to the ‘‘topdown’’ model of scientific heritage revitalization taken by Cambridge and Oxford, one which is driven from the ‘‘bottom-up’’ and one which staff and students from the Centre for the History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) at the University of Leeds embraced when they embarked on a project in 2007 to establish their own University Museum of the History of Science, Technology and Medicine. This paper offers some reflections based on recent experiences at Leeds. Emphasizing the importance of collective effort, it will broadly chart the project members’ recent work and will highlight the project’s growth from a small volunteer initiative, aimed at salvaging disparate scientific collections from all over the campus, to a centrally supported and long-term scheme to provide collections care, exhibitions, and public events, as well as material for teaching and research within history and philosophy of science. Sketching possible futures for the Leeds project, it considers challenges confronting the heritage and University sectors more broadly, and how those involved with historic scientific collections might make use of new opportunities for teaching, research, and public engagement. 1. Giving new ‘life’ to old objects: alternative approaches to heritage revitalization Since its foundation as the Yorkshire College of Science in 1874, the University of Leeds has established itself as a world-class teaching and research institution in experimental physics, medicine, mathematics, geology and mining, chemistry, engineering, and biology. Tools, instruments, machinery, samples, and specimens played a central part in the University achieving this status, but rapid technological development and changing pedagogical techniques have gradually left Leeds with a large number of redundant collections and equipment. Without the necessary will, expertise or funding to document, care for, and interpret them, such collections were left to deteriorate, and are now seen by some as occupying valuable storage space which could be otherwise used.3 Prior to the establishment of the museum taskforce, these circumstances meant that University departments faced pressure to rationalise and dispose of their historically significant, extensive and diverse collections, of which some 12 out of 30 can be broadly defined as scientific, technological, or medical and each containing between 1000 to 100,000 items.4 The University’s Herbarium, for example, an important collection of 25,000 plant specimens dating from the mid-nineteenth century, and its anaesthetic collection, a small but significant collection of approximately 100 mid-nineteenth century anaesthetic inhalers and masks, have been loaned or donated to other museums, while other items at risk of disposal,

2

717

such as William Astbury’s camera used in the 1930s to take the first images of DNA, have often been salvaged by dedicated members of University staff who remember with fondness the use of the objects in teaching and research and value their importance to the scientific heritage of the University. Other at-risk artefacts of note include colour dye and chemical samples originating from the University’s early years as a technical college aiding the local textile industry, electrical generating apparatus and magic lanterns from the University’s history of education collection, and a workshop full of nineteenth century printing presses. Yet while recent trends in the academe suggest that many have turned away from collections relevant to their own discipline, many within the history of science have embraced objects as a way of exploring scientific practice in the past. Through the study of instruments and books used to conduct experimental work and specimens specifically collected for scientific study, researchers in the history of science have thus given new ‘‘life’’ to old collections.5 The study of an individual artefact has in recent years also been termed an ‘‘object biography’’; viewing objects in such a way allows us to trace their changing meaning, from useful tool or sample constructed by a manufacturer or collected by a natural philosopher or scientist to ‘‘artefact’’ within a museum collection and subject of study for the historian of science.6 The earliest aim of the museum taskforce at the University of Leeds was similarly geared towards exploring the history of science through the deteriorating but fascinating collections housed within its own institution. 1.1. The establishment of the museum taskforce The museum taskforce was established in 2007 following growing concerns about deteriorating university collections among members of the Centre for HPS. Composed of approximately 20 HPS staff and postgraduate students, the taskforce brought together those with experience of working with historic scientific collections at institutions such as the Thackray Museum, the Oxford Museum of the History of Science, and the National Maritime Museum, and those with a variety of skill sets including collections research and database design. With its collective expertise, the taskforce volunteered to provide a vital safeguarding role for the University’s scientific heritage by working with departments with relevant collections and by building the collections into their own research and teaching in ways they find interesting and fruitful. Taskforce research has since uncovered important new research avenues. For example, while existing research has highlighted the importance of Adolf Ziegler’s wax models for enabling nineteenthcentury researchers across the world to visualise embryological development, little was known about the significance of these models at Leeds until the taskforce began working with those once used in the University’s Medical School.7 It was discovered that the models had been central to University teaching and research prior to digital microscopic imaging, and this has been built into new exhibitions and resources. Moreover, following her own valuable experiences with object-centred learning at Leeds, former MA student and taskforce member, Lisa Hobson, developed scientific object guides for lecturers and students, which invited them to think beyond an object’s dimensions, materials, and manufacturer and to think imaginatively about what it may tell us about the nature of a

Bennett (1997, pp. 29–46). This is an experience faced by most red-brick British Universities. Widespread fear in the UK about university collections disposal and deterioration led to the establishment of the University Museums Group in 1987, http://www.umg.org.uk/about/ (accessed 25 June 2012). 4 Arnold-Foster (1993, pp. 64–71). Scientific, technological and medical collections can be incredibly wide-ranging and include almost every object, natural and man-made but for our purposes, collections such as archaeology, coins and medals have been excluded. This is more a reflection of the interests of the department and a limitation on resources than an attempt to deny their significance. 5 For example, see Taub (2011, pp. 689–729). For the materiality of science books, see Topham (2004, pp. 431–442); Warwick (2003) and, in medicine, Jones (in press). 6 Alberti (2005, pp. 559–571). 7 Hopwood (2002). 3

718

C.L. Jones / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 (2013) 716–724

topic or the development of a discipline. Her report is now freely available to those outside of Leeds interested in enhancing their teaching and learning in the history of science.8 Crucially, the organisation and management of the taskforce’s project makes it radically different from other museums and object-centred project initiatives. While the bequests of benefactors, through which many other University museums were established, often shape collecting, exhibition, and education agendas, the Leeds project is largely run and shaped by its core audience of users.9 Several students have chosen the HPS MA degree course at Leeds precisely because the museum project offers exceptional and unusual learning and research resources, demonstrating that object-based learning, particularly when self-directed, adds distinctiveness to the University’s offer to students. Of course, object-centred learning also enhances practical museum skills and, together with the development of building experience in documentation and conversation, the Leeds project enables its users to have almost unrestricted hands-on experience with objects not typically available in other museums; it ensures that these users interact and value the heritage of the institution of which they form a part through their active involvement, and thus has much in common with the growing numbers of volunteer-led ‘‘bottom-up’’ community curation projects.10 1.2. Collections display Generous financial support from the British Society for the History of Science (BSHS) and the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society has allowed the taskforce to open up the collections to those beyond the Centre for HPS through exhibitions. The decision to develop a multi-sited museum with the University’s collections—that is the development of exhibitions and events across the whole campus—also differs from conventional university museums, which typically have one dedicated space for collection display. While the multi-site museum certainly has the potential to lead to problems—the inability of visitors to find displays in some of the more inaccessible areas for example—it has also created a number of opportunities. The multi-sited nature of the Leeds’ museum project allows taskforce members to work closely with those with a stake in the collections and to display each collection in the department in which it originated, thus serving to highlight each collection’s individual history and the diversity of the objects within it. For example, taskforce members began to contribute to work already being conducted on a collection of historic scientific instruments by a team of dedicated members of staff from the School of Physics and Astronomy, who had voluntarily spent over ten years listing, photographing, and displaying some 600 nineteenth- and twentieth-century instruments. Working across the University with departments in which many of the collections were once used also provides taskforce members with current perspectives on science teaching and practice, which in turn enhances their own learning, teaching, and research. The first exhibition, held in the University’s library, showcased some of the highlights of the collections and allowed us to promote the project within the institution through a post-exhibition opening workshop. The taskforce built on the success of this event to develop a series of exhibitions and associated reading groups, seminars, and workshops at the BSHS postgraduate conference, in the Business School centred on the MONAIC, in the School of Philosophy, Religion and History of Science (PRHS) on the theme of ‘‘Making the Invisible Visible,’’ 8

and in the University Library centred on Astbury’s camera, details of which will be outlined in the following section. Potential inaccessibility issues created by the multi-sited museum have also been solved to some degree through the construction of a project website, the use of social media and a crosscampus exhibit guide. The use of multi-media allows visitors to seek out the collections and exhibits for themselves both on site and remotely. Such an approach was highlighted by a recent exhibition within the PRHS called ‘‘Hidden Histories,’’ which displayed artefacts from a range of collections and provided a map showing the location of other exhibits. For the exhibition, each taskforce member wrote a short text label for their chosen object—from part of a nineteenth-century printing press to an ophthalmoscope—and expanded on the information in a film, now on YouTube, and a blog post [http://hpsmuseumleeds.wordpress.com/ (accessed 16 July 2013)]. The blog in particular has been a way for taskforce members to share research and ideas, but it is also a product of the taskforce’s strong belief that the Museum project should be outward looking in its approach. Members have also sought to gain knowledge from and share experiences and expertise with similar museum projects and other history of science museums, through local, national, and international conferences and museum networks, such as the Subject Specialist Network for Science and Industry Collections, the UK Medical Collections Group, and Universeum, the European network of University Museums. With ever more University scientific collections coming to light, the taskforce forms a voluntary collective initiative, which continues to work with University Departments to safeguard, list, catalogue, photograph, exhibit, and incorporate artefacts into teaching and research. One of its more recent projects involved working closely with the School of Earth and Environment to develop research on their extensive collections of geological specimens and instruments into an exhibition and a webpage. The following section highlights the significance of the Leeds project by focusing on specific collections and artefacts. 2. Scientific artefacts of historical significance and their stories The collections at the University of Leeds, then, can help to uncover the history of scientific activity at the institution, but what kind of history is this, whose history or histories, and how can we best interpret it? Such questions have continually challenged the taskforce. Each of the large number of nineteenth-century galvanometers in both the University’s history of education collection and the physics collection, for example, has an individual ‘‘biography’’ (e.g. one was manufactured by Leeds-based company Reynolds & Branson in 1906) but they also have a collective ‘‘identity’’ as an instrument type. However, as museum curators and researchers in material culture have long acknowledged, it is the ‘‘human stories’’ associated with the objects, the individuals who made, collected, and used them, that provide meaning and historical significance. Typically, once universities have come to value their historical scientific material as collections of artefacts, they tend to privilege those associated with important pioneers, which then aid the retelling of scientific progress, invention and innovation with their institution at the centre and thus inevitably join a proverbial race for pre-eminence.11 University College London’s webpage for its scientific collections, for example, highlights the uniqueness of its Francis Galton collection and states that ‘‘these

Hobson (2008a, 2008b), http://www.leeds.ac.uk/heritage/hpsmuseum/teaching.htm (accessed on 26 June 2012) http://arts.leeds.ac.uk/museum-of-hstm/. The Whipple Museum, for example, was founded in 1944 following the bequest of antique scientific instruments from Robert Whipple, the Director of the Cambridge Scientific Instrument Company at that time. Taub & Willmoth (2006). 10 For example, at Walsall Museum in 1991, local people were asked to offer their objects for display, Mullen (2003). For more recent discussions, see Simon (2010). 11 Bennett (2005, p. 604). 9

C.L. Jones / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 (2013) 716–724

important collections demonstrate the enormous contribution UCL has made to the advancement of science at a worldwide level.’’12 Highlighting the importance of pioneers through objects is admittedly only one approach among many in collections interpretation, but it is one which has been usefully adopted by the taskforce at Leeds. Through its adoption, the work of a university museum can complement and further their institution’s aims and objectives and endorse its corporate identity of cutting edge research, while simultaneously acting to reduce the threat of collections disposal.13 Demonstrating that a pioneer at Leeds was the first to conduct an experiment, procedure, or to make or own a particular important piece of equipment has helped to raise support for Leeds’ collections within the University and also among members of the public. Indeed, the concepts of ‘‘pioneers’’ and ‘‘firsts’’ are so well-entrenched in museum interpretation that it could be argued that visitors come to expect it.14 Interpreting Leeds’ collection in such a way has had another purpose: to challenge existing histories of science, technology, and medicine by highlighting Leeds’ relatively neglected role as a centre of scientific, technological, and medical excellence. Taking this approach has also led on to our unpacking of the human story behind the pioneer: how and why they made, designed, or used an object, the struggles they faced along the way, and the numerous other characters involved in the story of the artefact. Indeed, a series of different relationships, disciplines of knowledge, and practices surround each object.15 The human stories behind the taskforce, however, are also crucial; it is the individuals within the taskforce that give objects new meanings as they interact with them and it is their actions that make the current project a success. Certainly, many collections would have been disposed of or be deteriorating in boxes in store rooms without the taskforce’s intervention. The sub-projects then reflect the importance of Leeds individuals, both to the history of the objects but also to their new status. While all examples demonstrate how the taskforce have revived scientific heritage at Leeds, the first two demonstrate how the taskforce worked closely with two University departments already aware of the value of their collections and the final two examples demonstrate the importance of the taskforce’s interventions in salvaging collections at risk of disposal. 2.1. Leeds and precision engineering: the Barr & Stroud rangefinder The taskforce worked with the School of Physics and Astronomy to highlight the importance of the Leeds rangefinder, an optical instrument vital to armies and navies across the world in allowing them to accurately aim a weapon at an enemy target. The human story makes it a significant object by highlighting the University of Leeds as a Northern hub of nineteenth-century engineering, scientific, and commercial innovation. The first rangefinder was produced by two professors at the Yorkshire College of Science, William Stroud, who was appointed to the Cavendish Chair of Physics in 1885, and Professor Barr (1855–1931), a professor of civil and mechanical engineering. The pair set about developing the rangefinder following a 1888 War Office advertisement in Engineering magazine even though neither had any knowledge of such instruments. After several refinements, the Navy finally accepted their rangefinder design in 1892, which resulted in wider commercial success. The pair the left the University to establish a purposebuilt factory in Scotland in 1904. ‘‘Barr and Stroud’’ became a fully

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

719

incorporated company in 1912 and became renowned for their optical engineering throughout the twentieth- and into the twenty-first centuries.16 Glasgow currently celebrates Barr and Stroud as a successful local firm and Glasgow University’s possession of archives relating to their rangefinders allows the City and its oldest University to claim ownership of the company’s ‘‘world changing’’ achievements.17 Yet, members of the taskforce, alongside members of the University of Leeds’ Department of Physics, were keen to bring to prominence the importance of the high quality of precision engineering at Leeds which allowed Barr and Stroud to build the first prototype rangefinder and consequently successfully to supply the British War Office with rangefinders through all twentieth-century conflicts. Without the concerted efforts of both members of Leeds’ School of Physics and the museum taskforce, the Leeds rangefinder might have been lost, and work is ongoing to ensure that its legacy is widely promoted. It is now on permanent display within the School of Physics, and is accessible remotely from the Leeds University Digital Library [http://digital.library.leeds.ac.uk/1516/ (accessed 16 July 2013)]; moreover its story has been incorporated into a number of exhibitions across the University and it now forms the basis of an MA research project. Its inclusion in recent Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) funded open days to commemorate Leeds’ contributions to the First World War also highlighted its legacy to members of the public. During the conflict, the rangefinder was a vital piece of equipment used to target German opponents by British Army infantry; the Leeds rangefinder was presented to the University in 1923 by the Barr & Stroud company who recognised the importance of its legacy. 2.2. Leeds and economics: the Newlyn-Philips machine The second example of the importance of the museum project’s work in advancing collections work concerns the University’s Newlyn-Phillips machine, also known as the MONIAC Mark I, the first analogue computer used to measure the flow of money around the economy. The machine was built in Leeds with a motor taken from a Lancaster bomber and sheets of perspex by Bill Phillips, an engineer and student at the London School of Economics (LSE), and Walter Newlyn, a friend and lecturer in economics at the University of Leeds.18 It was designed to provide useful predictions of the effects of specific monetary and fiscal policies; changing the amount of water flowing around the machine demonstrated the effects of policies in taxation, exchange rate and income, interest rates, Government expenditure, consumption, or imports and exports. The Mark I’s physicality and its facilitation of economic modelling made it a particularly effective aid in teaching economics to undergraduates and the Leeds machine was used in teaching for twenty five years, before it fell out of use towards the end of the twentieth century. Realizing its significance, the University Business School replaced many of its worn out parts and put the newly restored machine on display within the School. The machine then was valued by its home department, but with the taskforce’s intervention, it became a focal point of celebration for the whole University. Indeed, the taskforce were keen to revive the machine’s historical legacy and importance of Leeds to the history of economics; a legacy which had been claimed by universities elsewhere. Around 14 of the Mark II machines had been built and

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums/sciences/collections (accessed 27 May 2012). Were (2010, pp. 293, 296). Bennett (2005, pp. 602–608). Alberti (2005, p. 561). Institute of Physics (2005). http://www.worldchanging.glasgow.ac.uk/article/?id=21 (accessed 27 May 2012). Loxley (2002), http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2002/oct/16/guardianobituaries.obituaries?INTCMP=SRCH (accessed 27 May 2012).

720

C.L. Jones / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 (2013) 716–724

Fig. 2. The Leeds Laennec Stethoscope.

uncertain spending according to Keynesian theory) and dictated the interest rates recorded by the machine, was also on display as Finn’s chosen object in the ‘‘Hidden Histories’’ exhibit within the School of PRHS. The display of this worn out and tired piece of machinery in its original state highlights Simon Schaffer’s recent assertion that shards and fragments can be just as enlightening as devices restored to their original state.20 The third stage of the project aspires to restore the machine to working order, a task inspired by Cambridge’s Faculty of Economics and Politics, who use their restored machine in demonstrations to undergraduates, local schools, economists, and community groups. The taskforce also aims to continue to highlight Walter Newlyn’s contribution to the heritage of Leeds by working with the West Yorkshire Playhouse. Newlyn and his wife Doreen were instrumental in helping to establish the Playhouse, one of Leeds’ most successful theatre venues. 2.3. Leeds and medicine: Edward Atkinson’s stethoscope

Fig. 1. The Newlyn-Philips machine redisplayed.

sold to universities and financial institutions across the globe, among the most famous residing at the University of Cambridge and the LSE, Phillips’ own institution. The Mark II, now known as the Phillips machine, had helped to resolve a major dispute over interest rates between Keynesian and Robertsonian theories in the 1950s. Leeds’ role and Newlyn’s contributions had been largely forgotten outside of the Business School, unsurprising given the inaccessible location and minimal interpretation of the machine on display.19 Yet, crucially, just as the Leeds prototype rangefinder had been invaluable to future technological development, the contributions of the Mark II would not have been possible without the modifications of the Mark I model. Working with enthusiastic supporters from the Business School and the School of Computing, the taskforce ran a successful project to raise awareness of the machine’s important legacy. The first stage of the project brought together economists, computer experts, and historians from Leeds, Cambridge, and the LSE, as well as members of the Newlyn family, for a workshop to discuss the Leeds MONIAC. Thanks to a grant from the BSHS and support from the Business School, the second stage of the project saw the machine display reinterpreted. Taskforce member and former PhD student, Michael Finn, developed a new eye-catching exhibition, which incorporated details about how the machine worked and a work of art inspired by the machine developed by Newlyn’s daughter (Fig. 1). A piece from the original model, the ‘‘liquidity preference function,’’ which affected idle balances (money held for 19

While the rangefinder and the MONIAC had received some care and recognition from their home departments, the intervention of the museum taskforce was of vital importance in safeguarding a collection of some 500 eighteenth-, nineteenth- and twentiethcentury medical and surgical instruments. These instruments once filled display cases in the Algernon Firth Building, the University’s Institute of Pathology, but the move of the Institute into the School of Medicine in 2008, along with the retirement of those who had once been responsible for the displays, meant that the medical collection was due to be thrown away. Growing awareness of the museum project within the University, however, led a staff member from Pathology to inform the taskforce of the collection’s imminent disposal and, with only a few days to spare, three PhD student taskforce members salvaged the collection and have since began the task of documenting, photographing and displaying some of its most significant artefacts.21 On-going taskforce research on the collection serves to highlight Leeds’ historical importance as a provincial centre of medicine. Indeed, some of the artefacts in this collection date back to the foundation of the Leeds General Infirmary in 1767 and of the Leeds Medical School in 1831, and of the lifetimes of the Hey medical dynasty (William (1736–1819), father of William (1772–1844) and Samuel (1815–1888) and grandfather of William (1796– 1875)), celebrated for their pioneering surgical and obstetric work, and Charles Turner Thackrah (1795–1833) renowned for his writings on occupational disease.22 Most artefacts from this collection, however, date from the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when Leeds’ reputation as a centre of medical excellence had been secured. Artefacts include clinical thermometers designed by Sir Thomas Clifford Allbutt (1836–1925), the first to measure under 12 inches in length, and surgical instruments to conduct pioneering abdominal procedures designed by Sir Berkeley Moynihan (1865– 1936). Future projects with the medical collection will be collaborations with the School of English’s new Centre for Medical Humanities, which has a strong programme of public events.

Leeson (2000). Schaffer (2011, pp. 706–717). 21 Using funds from the BSHS, the taskforce were able to purchase their own laptop and camera, which are still vital for the purposes of cataloguing and taking and editing images. Taken in front of a white background in the museum store room, images are vital for the identification of artefacts. 22 For example, Hey (1736–1819) and Thackrah (1831). 20

C.L. Jones / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 (2013) 716–724

Of particular significance in recapturing the importance of Leeds as a medical centre through this collection, however, is a rare early stethoscope, thought to be a second modification of Rene Laennec’s original design dating from 1826. Only a handful of this design are thought to exist across the country and the worn condition of our example suggests it was well used (Fig. 2). The stethoscope is of course an iconic medical symbol; historians have described it as one of the most important diagnostic inventions of all time and its dissemination from the Necker Hospital in Paris, where Laennec worked, to Britain via London, specifically via James Hope (1801– 1841), a physician at St George’s Hospital, is a common narrative.23 But this stethoscope may challenge such a centre-periphery viewpoint. Ongoing taskforce research suggests that the stethoscope was owned by Edward Atkinson, a late nineteenth-century surgeon at Leeds General Infirmary. Edward’s father, John, was also a surgeon and a curator, but importantly was a contemporary of Laennec. John may have obtained the stethoscope during a visit to Paris at a time when such trips were typical for medical men. The story of our stethoscope therefore contributes to a growing historical consensus that medical men in the provinces were just as much a part of global medical networks as those in London. Yet, this stethoscope is also a powerful visual aid; HPS staff use the artefact to teach undergraduates about the relationship between medical theory and practice and the beginnings of pathological anatomy in the early nineteenth century. As part of the ‘‘Making the Invisible Visible’’ exhibition, it helps to convey to staff, students, and visitors more widely that the instrument was the first tool to allow physicians to ‘‘see’’ (or, more accurately, to hear) into the body. This use of the stethoscope in teaching also serves to complement recent research in the material history of science concerned with reconstructing practices, and one current taskforce member is in the process of hand-crafting replicas in order to explore how Laennec understood the sounds he heard through the stethoscope within a patient’s chest.24 Through the taskforce’s ongoing work and promotion, the stethoscope has been the subject of enquiries from researchers all over the world, but before its intervention, the instrument was destined for a skip. 2.4. Leeds and molecular biology: William Astbury’s camera The final example of the importance of the work conducted by the taskforce to date focuses on an object which highlight Leeds’ important role in early molecular biology: a camera reportedly used to take the first X-ray diffraction photographs of DNA. Designed and built in the University’s textile department workshops by William Astbury, a textile physicist, the camera was first used in 1939 by Florence Bell, Astbury’s PhD student, to take images of the structure of naturally-occurring fibres, such as wool, silk, cotton, and chitin. From these images, in which patterns were displayed when X-rays diffracted in crystalline, Astbury and Bell determined the shapes of molecules of biological origin in order to aid to the British textile trade, the industry for which the region of West Riding was best known and for which the University of Leeds, as Yorkshire College, had gained its reputation some thirty or forty years earlier.25 Yet, despite their pioneering contributions, the story of Astbury and Bell was largely unknown and the camera, like the medical collection, risked disposal. John Lydon, a member of staff from the Faculty of Biological Sciences, who used the X-Ray crystallography technique, salvaged the camera and, until the taskforce intervened, it remained in his office.

23

721

Fig. 3. Astbury’s camera.

The taskforce set about reviving the place of Leeds in the history of DNA. While Astbury’s mainstream work focused on the structure of fibres and of course never used the term DNA, his observations on the transitions in fibrous proteins remain hugely important today for research into a wide range of neurological diseases, such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, but more significantly, his work set the course for the study of modern molecular biology. Indeed, the discovery of the double helix in 1953 is famed for forming the base of modern molecular biology, but the work of James Watson and Francis Crick may well have not been have been possible without the pioneering work of Astbury and Bell. With the outcomes of new research, the taskforce developed an exhibition centred on the Astbury camera within the entrance to the University’s main library and an accompanying website titled ‘‘X-ray Marks the Spot: William Astbury and the Birth of Molecular Biology at Leeds’’ (Fig. 3).26 The exhibition was launched by Robert Olby, former Leeds-based historian of science now Professor at the University of Pittsburgh who had conducted extensive research on Astbury.27 By reviving the work of Astbury among the local community, the taskforce’s work inspired the Leeds based Thackray Museum, one of the largest medical museums in the UK, to focus their Local Heroes Award from the Royal Society exhibition on Astbury in the form of an exhibition. The work of the taskforce also attracted a great deal of media attention; the camera formed part of the BBC’s History of the World through 100 objects, was featured

For example, Bynum (1994) and Reiser (1978). Sibum (1995, pp. 73–106) and Heering & Wittje (2011). 25 BBC A History of the World. An X-ray camera from early DNA studies. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/LaBTH6NmSCmjktn9hv3cDA (accessed 27 May 2012). 26 University of Leeds, X-Ray Marks the Spot, http://www.leeds.ac.uk/heritage/Astbury/ (accessed 27 May 2012). New research on Astbury was published by Hall (2011). 27 Olby (1984, pp. 244–247; 1994). 24

722

C.L. Jones / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 (2013) 716–724

in national newspapers and the subject of radio broadcasts.28 Research into the importance of the pioneers of X-ray crystallography at Leeds is ongoing and the taskforce, with support from other areas of the University, and in 2013 are commemorating the one hundred year anniversary of William Henry Bragg’s pioneering work of X-ray crystallography with an ambitious programme of events and activities, including lectures, workshops and innovative drama pieces [http://www.leeds.ac.uk/info/125160/bragg_centenary_2013 (accessed 16 July 2013)]. Without the taskforce, the Astbury camera, the Barr & Stroud prototype rangefinder, the Mark I MONIAC, and the Laennec stethoscope, would not have been ‘‘brought back to life’’ and their stories in highlighting the historic importance of Leeds as a place of scientific innovation would still be relatively unknown. 3. The future of the Leeds museum project: challenges and plan Despite its success, the Leeds museum project has faced many challenges along the way and, like other universities and museums more generally, continues to do so. Patrick Boylan, in his study of university museums, suggests that all-inclusive museum spaces can become sites of conflict where alternative and competing forms of discourse between those in specific academic disciplines and the public are played out. New interpretive and audience development strategies at Leeds therefore require careful planning.29 Yet, perhaps the greatest challenge continues to be project sustainability. Of the 400 or so University Museums reported to exist in Britain in 2004, fewer than ten per cent received core revenue budget or had dedicated members of staff.30 The continuing problems of lack of funding and limited numbers of museum staff within UK universities qualified in collections work, exacerbated in recent years through Government cuts to the arts and regional funding bodies, mean that the intrinsic value of our collections can be overlooked. While small grants continue to be available for definitely defined and contained sub-projects, the challenge is to obtain long term funding to keep the larger project operational on a day to day basis. Moreover, our collections are extensive, meaning that it is unlikely that we will ever really fully get to grips with the significance (or not) of all we have and which makes the justification of the retention of collections more difficult. Sustainability is also threatened if collections knowledge and expertise leaves with taskforce members, who typically move on after completing a few years of study, and with members of staff, who remember using the collections in teaching and research, as they leave or retire. Yet, while these challenges are unlikely ever to disappear, collective effort in the form of the taskforce at Leeds has demonstrated what can be achieved when enthusiastic and committed individuals are prepared to volunteer their time to such initiatives. The enduring commitment and enthusiasm from the taskforce, along with the diversity, scale, and significance of the University’s collections, means that, even with minimal budgets, the salvaging of objects, collections research projects, exhibitions, and events and further integration of objects into teaching will continue within the Centre for HPS at Leeds. Such concerted efforts have led to the recent appointment of the project’s first full-time paid member of staff, a museum director and now, led by the director, the taskforce is working harder than ever to build in project sustainability by demonstrating the value and relevance of its collections to the University, its

alumni and industry sponsors by aligning the project to its mission to become in the top 50 of the world’s universities. Project sustainability is also being implemented through long-term strategies, plans, and policies and through continued and extensive documentation of all collections. The project builds on the collections knowledge accumulated since its inception, which is becoming clearly documented and accessible for both existing and new taskforce members. An oral history project is also underway for an oral history project, which aims to record the memories and collections knowledge of retired and soon-to-retire members of staff, in order to ensure that vital information is not lost forever. Moreover, current shifts within the higher education section towards the demonstration of research impact and the need for public accountability provide ideal opportunities to broaden the project’s reach to audiences beyond the University. In fact, the museum project is perfectly placed to develop and contribute to major University research grants from those such as the AHRC and the Wellcome Trust, who now place a large emphasis on public engagement, and to mediate sustainable and meaningful relationships between local communities and academics.31 Inspired by successful programmes run by those such as UCL Museums, ambitious future public engagement projects at Leeds centred on the collections have several key aims: to highlight the relevant role of the history of science, technology, and medicine within different cultures, to break down the intellectual barriers of the University and eradicate the problem of ‘‘town versus gown’’ common to all universities, and to inspire school pupils to enter higher education in the future. The taskforce’s exploration of new interpretation strategies also serves to open up the museum project to audiences beyond the University. While much of the project work to date has focused on the collective institutional memory of scientific pioneers, further exhibitions will develop alternative methods of interpretation. Artefacts unlikely to be connected to any scientific pioneer, for example, highlight the everyday importance of science at Leeds, its links to wider industry and its place in national and international contexts. Indeed, history of science museums have yet to fully adopt the more nuanced approaches to scientific, technological and medical innovation prevalent among academic historians, perhaps because it is currently unclear how audiences will respond. Yet, displays of ambiguous objects can, as Jim Bennett argues, be used for opening and questioning our understanding of the past; it may also be that the display of ‘‘the everyday’’ has greater resonance with audiences outside of the University than those interpreted to celebrate the University’s achievements.32 Moreover, as other medical exhibitions have already demonstrated, exploration of the aesthetics of instruments and apparatus, alongside historical narratives and meanings, may evoke an array of different emotional responses from visitors.33 Indeed, while visitors to Damian Hirst’s 2012 Retrospective at London’s Tate Modern came to appreciate the aesthetic appeal of rows upon rows of surgical instruments and pharmaceuticals, visitors to new displays at Leeds may appreciate the beauty of displays of rows of Leeds’ nineteenth-century galvanometers made of brass, wood, and glass and hand-crafted to precision.34 At its most ambitious level, the museum project aims not only to broaden its reach to public audiences but aims to embed the collections into the very fabric of University research and learning. Achieving this aim will mean that the University’s collections

28 BBC, 2010b, Leeds honours DNA pioneer William Astbury http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/leeds/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9228000/9228394.stm (accessed 27 May 2012); Wainwright (2012). http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/23/william-astbury-dna-scientist (accessed 27 May 2012). 29 Were (2010, p. 302) and Boylan (1999, pp. 43–56). 30 University Museums Group UK (2004). 31 Were (2010, pp. 291–304). 32 Bennett (2005, p. 606). 33 Arnold & Soderqvist (2011). 34 For example, see Hirst http://www.damienhirst.com/naked (accessed 30 May 2012).

C.L. Jones / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 (2013) 716–724

inevitably become a main focus for major research projects, impact case studies and public engagement beyond the Centre of HPS. Following universities such as Manchester, Newcastle, and St. Andrews, there are obvious opportunities to better integrate the museum project into the academic and experimental learning of students on the University’s MA course in Museum Studies. Yet, as taskforce research projects suggest, object-centred research enriches the very nature of enquiry and initiates and supports much wider experimental activity in a range of disciplines; objects, as a primary source, supplement texts, subvert traditional narratives, or even replace them in cases where documentation is limited. Objects, such as our Laennec stethoscope, are embodiments of social practice and, by interacting with in object-centred seminars them, medical students, for example, have not only been able to explore the material history of their own discipline but have found that their appreciation of the tactile nature of medicine and the necessary skill involved in crafting and operating such tools has been advanced. Yet, through object interaction, those beyond medicine gain greater appreciation of the significant material nature of our world. Objects remind us that, while much of academia is about thinking, much of it is also about doing. 4. Conclusion: drawing lessons from the Leeds project Even if our most ambitious aims are unfilled, the future of the project to establish a museum of the history of science, technology, and medicine at the University of Leeds still looks bright. So, what lessons to take away from it? While the University’s collections of objects have been the project’s focus, it is important to remember that people have always been at its heart. After all, objects reveal very little without context. The manufacturer, collector, and scientist associated with the object provide the stories behind the research, learning experiences, exhibitions, and events and have helped highlight the relatively neglected importance of Leeds as a centre of scientific innovation and enterprise. Just as important is the way in which taskforce members have re-contextualised the Leeds scientific collections, from teaching and research resources in the sciences to teaching and research resources in the history or histories of these sciences. Moreover, taskforce intervention, alongside those within the University departments, has been crucial in preventing collection destruction and deterioration. The project at Leeds therefore reveals the effectiveness of collective action from the ground up. Widespread enthusiasm and continued commitment to the project from volunteers with an interest in the history of science can wield remarkable results, even without significant funding or paid members of staff. Raising awareness of the taskforce’s on-going work and demonstrating to the University the multiple contributions collections can make to its mission—as teaching aids, as artefacts of exploration in public engagement, as subjects of research in the history of science and beyond, and as tools for increasing student employability and for attracting new students—has resulted in widespread support for the project within the University, leading to the recent appointment of the project’s full-time paid director. Learning such lessons however never ends; creating awareness and publicity for new events, working together with departments and relevant stakeholders on long-term strategies and networking are ongoing tasks, not least because items of significance are still at risk of disposal if their value is not continually demonstrable and responsive to changing higher education agendas. Only through long-term planning, continued taskforce commitment and the demonstration of relevance to University strategy can project sustainability be achieved. In the words of the University Museum Group: ‘‘the full

35

University Museums Group UK (2004, p. 8).

723

cultural value of a museum or collection resides not only in its intrinsic significance—but also in the benefits of the activities developed around it. Consequently, what university museums do is as important as what they have.’’35 References Alberti, S. J. M. M. (2005). Objects and the museum. Isis, 96, 559–571. Arnold, K., & Soderqvist, T. (2011). Medical instruments in museums: Immediate impressions and historical meanings. Isis, 102(4). Arnold-Foster, K. (1993). Held in trust: Museums and collections of universities in Northern England. London: HMSO. BBC (2010). A history of the World. An X-ray camera from early DNA studies. Accessed 27.05.12. BBC (2010). Leeds honours DNA pioneer William Astbury. Accessed 27.05.12. Boylan, P. J. (1999). Universities and museums: Past, present and future. Museum Management and Curatorship, 18(1), 43–56. Bennett, J. (1997). Museums and the establishment of the history of science at Oxford and Cambridge. British Journal for the History of Science, 30, 29–46. Bennett, J. (2005). Museums and the history of science: Practitioner’s postscript. Isis, 96(4), 602–608. Bynum, W. (1994). Science and the practice of medicine in the nineteenth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hall, K. (2011). William Astbury and the biological significance of nucleic acids, 1938–1951. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 42, 119–128. Heering, P., & Wittje, R. (2011). Learning by doing: Experiments and instruments in the history of science teaching. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Hey, W. (1736–1819). Case histories in obstetrics in the Leeds area. [Unpublished]. Hobson, L. (2008). Using scientific collections in teaching history and philosophy of science. Accessed 30.05.12. Hobson, L. (2008). Object research guide for students in history and philosophy of science. Accessed 30.05.12. Hopwood, N. (2002). Embryos in wax: Models from the Ziegler studio. Cambridge: The Whipple Museum for the History of Science. Institute of Physics. (2005). Apologia pro vita mea and early reminiscences of Barr & Stroud rangefinders, by professor William Stroud. London: The History of Physics Group. Jones, C. (2012). (Re-)reading medical trade catalogs: The uses of professional advertising in British medical practice, 1870–1914. Bulletin of the History of the Medicine, 86, 361–393. Leeson, R. (Ed.). (2000). A. W. H. Philips: Collected works in contemporary perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . Loxley, J. (2002). Obituary, Walter Newlyn, economist devoted to development in Africa. The Guardian. Accessed 27.05.2011. Mullen, C. (2003). ‘The People’s Show’ in interpreting objects. In C. F. Kreps (Ed.), Liberating culture: Cross-cultural perspectives on museums, curation and heritage preservation. London: Routledge. Murray, D. (1904). Museums, their history and their use: With a bibliography and list of museums in the United Kingdom. Glasgow: MacLehose. Olby, R. (1984). The sheriff and the cowboys: Or Weaver’s support of Astbury and Pauling. Social Studies of Science, 14, 244–247. Olby, R. (1994). The path to the double helix. New York: Dover Publications Inc. Reiser, S. J. (1978). Medicine and the reign of technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schaffer, S. (2011). Easily cracked: Scientific instruments in states of disrepair. Isis, 102, 706–717. Sibum, H. O. (1995). Reworking the mechanical value of heat: Instruments of precision and gestures of accuracy in early Victorian England. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 26, 73–106. Simon, N. (2010). The participatory museum. Santa Cruz, Calif.: Museum. Taub, L. (2011). Focus: The history of scientific instruments. Isis, 102(4), 689–729. Taub, L., & Willmouth, F. (Eds.). (2006). The whipple museum of the history of science: Instruments and interpretations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thackrah, C. (1831). The effects of the principal arts, trades on health and longevity. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown & Green; Leeds: J. Baines. Topham, J. (2004). A view from the industrial age. Isis, 95, 431–442. UCL. Science collections. Accessed 27.05.12. University of Glasgow (2012). Inventing the range-finder and other optical instruments. Accessed 27.05.12. University of Leeds (2012). X-ray marks the spot, Accessed 27.05.12.

724

C.L. Jones / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 (2013) 716–724

University Museums Group UK, (2004). University museums in the United Kingdom: A national resource for the 21st Century. [S. I.]: University Museums Group UK. Wainwright, M. (2012). Sidelined scientist who came close to discovering DNA is celebrated at last. The Guardian. Accessed 27.05.12.

Warwick, A. (2003). Masters of theory: Cambridge and the rise of mathematical physics. Chicago/London: Univ. Chicago Press. Were, G. (2010). Re-engaging the university museum: Knowledge, collections and communities at university college London. Museum Management and Curatorship, 25(3), 291–304.