Comments on: The Kissmeyer-Nielsen tray. Are we learning from or learning about biomedical objects? http://www.corporeality.net/museion/2007/01/09/the-kissmeyer-nielsen-tray-are-we-learning-from-or-learning-about-biomedical-objects/ Medical Museion Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:58:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Thomas http://www.corporeality.net/museion/2007/01/09/the-kissmeyer-nielsen-tray-are-we-learning-from-or-learning-about-biomedical-objects/comment-page-1/#comment-216828 Thomas Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:08:30 +0000 http://www.corporeality.net/museion/?p=566#comment-216828 I wonder if one could play on the phenomenon of progressive miniaturisation, i.e., from early 18th century retorts to 9600 nanowells (and soon even more picowells)? Some of these objects have a sort of aesthetic quality (although perhaps only bench workers are able to see that :-) Anyway -- I really find these little things extremely fascinating.  <img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/151/352610900_b1188d4db2_m.jpg" /> It's a very nice case of a non-assuming but highly influential laboratory infrastructure technology which spans the entire period of the "Biomedicine 1955-2005" project. The first microplates were apparently constructed in Hungary in the early 1950s (with a handfull of wells) and now there are plates with up to approx. 10.000 wells (which brings the chamber conditions into the nano range). One <a href="http://www.microplate.org/history/det_hist.htm" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">website</a> claims that the market for microwells in the year 2000 was is in the order of 125 mill. US$. As you say, one can tell many great stories around these wells, including one of miniaturisation in biomedicine. There doesn't seem to have been done any historical work, except an unpublished essay by a person in the industry (Manns, Microplate history, 2nd ed, 1999). The same <a href="http://www.microplate.org/history/det_hist.htm" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">website</a> has a list of 'steps' in the development of the technology, apparently adopted from Manns essay. It looks like t<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtiter_plate" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">he Wikipedia article</a> has the major references (as so often, Wikipedia is a great reference site). I wonder if one could play on the phenomenon of progressive miniaturisation, i.e., from early 18th century retorts to 9600 nanowells (and soon even more picowells)? Some of these objects have a sort of aesthetic quality (although perhaps only bench workers are able to see that :-)

Anyway — I really find these little things extremely fascinating. 

It’s a very nice case of a non-assuming but highly influential laboratory infrastructure technology which spans the entire period of the “Biomedicine 1955-2005″ project. The first microplates were apparently constructed in Hungary in the early 1950s (with a handfull of wells) and now there are plates with up to approx. 10.000 wells (which brings the chamber conditions into the nano range). One website claims that the market for microwells in the year 2000 was is in the order of 125 mill. US$. As you say, one can tell many great stories around these wells, including one of miniaturisation in biomedicine.

There doesn’t seem to have been done any historical work, except an unpublished essay by a person in the industry (Manns, Microplate history, 2nd ed, 1999). The same website has a list of ‘steps’ in the development of the technology, apparently adopted from Manns essay. It looks like the Wikipedia article has the major references (as so often, Wikipedia is a great reference site).

]]> By: Søren http://www.corporeality.net/museion/2007/01/09/the-kissmeyer-nielsen-tray-are-we-learning-from-or-learning-about-biomedical-objects/comment-page-1/#comment-216820 Søren Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:59:05 +0000 http://www.corporeality.net/museion/?p=566#comment-216820 It is a bit disturbing, I agree, and I keep going over the argument in order to think of how the display of objects like the Kissmeyer-Nielsen tray may contribute to our knowledge about and familiarity with recent biomedicine. Much of the biomedical material heritage shares the characteristics of anonymity and lack of presence that is exemplified through the tray. Perhaps a comparative perspective will help to 'see' something in these kinds of object, that is juxtaposing them with earlier medical objects that are able to speak to us more directly. It is a bit disturbing, I agree, and I keep going over the argument in order to think of how the display of objects like the Kissmeyer-Nielsen tray may contribute to our knowledge about and familiarity with recent biomedicine. Much of the biomedical material heritage shares the characteristics of anonymity and lack of presence that is exemplified through the tray. Perhaps a comparative perspective will help to ‘see’ something in these kinds of object, that is juxtaposing them with earlier medical objects that are able to speak to us more directly.

]]> By: Thomas http://www.corporeality.net/museion/2007/01/09/the-kissmeyer-nielsen-tray-are-we-learning-from-or-learning-about-biomedical-objects/comment-page-1/#comment-216813 Thomas Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:31:40 +0000 http://www.corporeality.net/museion/?p=566#comment-216813 Very nice case! If generalised, your conclusion is quite disturbing for the ambition to collect and display recent medical objects for story-telling. But as you seem to imply, displaying material objects does not necessarily have anything to do with story-telling. Very nice case! If generalised, your conclusion is quite disturbing for the ambition to collect and display recent medical objects for story-telling. But as you seem to imply, displaying material objects does not necessarily have anything to do with story-telling.

]]>