Biomedicine on Display

I haven’t been around natural history museum DNA researchers for a while. So I didn’t know there is actually an -omics discipline called ‘museomics‘ — “the large-scale analysis of the DNA content of museum collections”. It’s not a joke, they (the Center for Comparative Genomics and Bioinformatics at The Pennsylvania State University and others) mean it seriously :-).

Is it really the case that almost all museum exhibitions dealing with medical themes these days are displaying DNA-images and colourful neuroscanning pictures?

Well, at least this is what the organisers of a meeting in Dresden next April seem to be suggesting. I think they are exaggerating a bit :-). But that said, the theme of the meeting — KörperGegenwart, neue Technologien, neue Sammlungen [contemporary bodies, new technologies, new collections] — is right on the spot.

The point of departure for the meeting — jointly organised by Zentrum für Literatur- und Kulturforschung in Berlin and Deutsches Hygiene-Museum in Dresden — is that the colonisation of the body by means of the life sciences has resulted in a gradual retreat from the immediately visible and material body.

An invisible biomedical body

The concepts, models and findings of contemporary biomedicine defy immediate visualisation, collecting and conservation. Therefore museums like Deutsche Hygiene-Museum, which was founded with the purpose of displaying the body, find themselves in an entirely new situation.

I couldn’t agree more — this is actually the central point in the paper on biomedicine as a challenge to museums that Adam, Camilla and I have just published. So we have every reason to participate (if we can: the meeting language is German and my German is rusty at best :-).

Rusty or not — it’s worth participating, because the meeting will address three types of timely questions for medical museums: first, the history of the techniques, tools and concepts by means of which the human body has been cut, dissected, interpreted and displayed; second, whether current biomedicine has made the body immaterial; and third, how the new biomedical body affects museum collection practices.

The meeting takes place 22-24 April next year. Read the call for papers here. If you want to participate, send a note to Stiftung Deutsches Hygiene-Museum, tagungszentrum@dhmd.de, or contact one of the four organisers: Sandra Mühlenberend (sandra.muehlenberend@dhmd.de), Susanne Roeßiger (susanne.roessiger@dhmd.de), Uta Kornmeier (kornmeier@zfl-berlin.org or Katrin Solhdju (solhdju@zfl-berlin.org).

Did you know that even bacteria are annoyed by the music of Engelbert Humperdinck? (Yes, you are not the only one). E.coli bacteria can’t stand it. It’s all (sort of) true:

Adam Zaretsky once spent 48 hours playing Engelbert Humperdincks’s “Greatest Hits” to a dish of E.coli bacteria to determine whether vibrations or sounds influenced bacterial growth. Watching the bacteria’s antibiotic production increase, Zaretsky decided that perhaps even cells were annoyed by constant subjection to “loud, really awful lounge music.”

Quoted from here. Any questions? :)

We are of course not the only museum that struggles with how to juggle art, science, materiality and medicine in our exhibitions. Next Friday, 4 December, the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology at University of Cambridge is organising a most interesting afternoon symposium titled ‘Assembling Bodies: Art, Science & Imagination’.

Curators and artistic contributors to MAA’s current experimental exhibition with the same name will explore techniques of investigation and presentation — including relationships between the body and material things, the potential of exhibitions as research projects, incorporating different sensory engagements in museum display, and accommodating multiple audiences.

After an opportunity to see the current exhibition there will be four presentations:

Anita Herle, ‘Exploring the body in the arts, social and bio-medical sciences’:

How do we know, experience and create different bodies? How have different bodies been imagined, known and acted upon in different times, places and disciplinary contexts? This presentation will examine the creative potential and challenges associated with curatorial techniques of assemblage and juxtaposition.

Mark Elliott, ‘Putting the pieces together: negotiating parts and wholes in Assembling Bodies’:

Exhibits about the measurement, classification and distribution of bodies highlight ways in which fragments, measurements or representations can ‘stand’ in for larger categories or entities, such as body, type, or human. This paper considers how the curators negotiated the relationship between parts and wholes, highlight the contingency as well as the potency of some of the technologies that make bodies visible.

Jocelyne Dudding, ‘Shifting images: Using ‘anthropometric’ photographs in museum display’:

This paper discusses the historic use of ‘anthropometric’ photography in the collecting and classifying of information of human bodies. It explores how anthropometric methods of photography were followed in some instances, and resisted or ignored in others, why other photographs were recontextualised and used as ‘anthropometric’, and how contemporary artists have responded to such classification.

Bonnie Kemske, ‘Capturing the Embrace: a sculptural engagement with Merleau-Ponty’s ‘lived experience’:

The inclusion of ceramic ‘hugs’ in Assembling Bodies challenges the dominance of the visual within exhibitions, makes us question our perceptions, and leads us to a more engaged understanding of personal relationships to art. Capturing the embrace as ‘cast hugs’ engages the body’s sense of touch as a way to merge the body as subject with the sculptural object: ‘… not the thing on its own, but the experience of the thing.’ [Merleau-Ponty 1962]

Admission is free, but spaces are limited. Mail liz.haslemere@maa.cam.ac.uk to reserve a place. If it wasn’t for the damned carbon footprint I would be tempted to fly Easyjet Cph-Stansted-Cph for a one-day trip. Why not videocast the presentations?

Last year we had a discussion on this blog (see here and here) about whether objects ‘talk’ — no, they don’t! But do they ’die’?

The UCL-based Autopsies group (associated with Film Studies) suggests they do. The group runs a cultural studies project called “Autopsies: The Afterlife of Dead Objects” to explore this morbid issue. Here’s how they reason about the ‘death’ of objects:

Just as the twentieth century was transformed by the advent of new forms of media—the typewriter, gramophone, and film, for example—the arrival of the twenty-first century has brought the phasing out of many public and private objects that only recently seemed essential to ‘modern life.’ What is the modern, then, without film projectors, typewriters, and turntables? How has the modern changed as trolley cars disappeared and hot air balloons were converted into high-risk sport rather than the demonstration of national pride in science and a crucial tactical mechanism of wartime? But what will our twenty-first century entail without mixmasters, VCRs, or petrol-driven automobiles? Does the ‘modern’ in fact program the death of objects? What is the significance of death for things that live only through such a paradoxical program of planned obsolescence? How can cultural historians and theorists participate in the reflection on the ends of objects, from their physical finitude to the very projects for their disposal, the latter increasingly of concern with the multiplication of things that do not gently decompose into their own night.

In other words, what the Autopsies project actually tries to do is to reflect on the life course and ultimate fate of the material things we associate with ‘modernity’ — and dressing this up in the metaphor of ‘death’.

The ’death’-metaphor might be useful. For example, I guess you could say, in some cognitively productive sense, that science, technology and medicine are huge modern technoscientific systems for the production of dead things. Because the perpetual quest for creativity, innovation and progress, by definition as it were, continuously kills off ideas, concepts, theories, methodologies, instruments and practices of the near past, turning them into a dead objects — dead scientific objects, dead technologies, dead medical instruments, dead diagnostic procedures and dead therapeutical regimes. The killing of living objects and parallel production of dead objects is an inherent necessary side-effect of the innovation machinery. 

I don’t think the ‘death’ metaphor radically changes the way I look at objects. But it nevertheless introduces a slightly different angle to the way I understand science, technology and medical museums — from being repositories of cultural heritage, they can be seen as graveyards for dead scientific, technological and medical objects.

And for some reason I like the idea of conceptualising medical museum objects as ‘dead objects’ better than the notions of ‘talking objects’ and ‘evocative objects’ (that said, ‘madeleines’ is my favourite metaphor).

(thanks to Haidy Geismar for the tip about the Autopsies project)

Like most other kinds of historical artefacts, medical objects from the past are scattered all over. Some are safely deposited in museums, small or large; others are in private collections; others again are circulating between private collectors, mediated by eBay and other auction services (and some, especially plastic objects from contemporary medicine, are contributing to landfill).

Whereas most public collections are online, most private are not. An inspiring exception from this internet invisibility of private collections is Donald Blaufox’s Museum of Historical Medical Artifacts. Working as a professor in nuclear medicine at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University Dr. Blaufox has spent much of his spare time in the last thirty years building up a collection of medical artefacts “that could serve as a nidus for a museum of medical history as evidenced by the objects that contributed to its development”.

Some objects “were acquired simply because they have some medical significance, others for their beauty, but all of them because they help to understand the evolution of medicine over the centuries”. He didn’t have the ambition to transform it into a public museum, but entertained the idea of prodcuing a catalogue in book form instead. Then, two years ago, he decided to go online. Now the web-based MoHMA contains over 1000 objects representing a wide range of medical practices and of craftsmanship.

Nicely and competently curated and beautifully represented in images, the MoHMA website is yet another example of how important private collectors have been, and still are, for the preservation and communication of the material medical heritage.

I tried Microsoft’s Bing for the first time today and googl… sorry, binged ‘Medical Museion’ — and to my great surprise I found this poem dedicated to our collections written by American editorial consultant Shannon Hunt, titled ‘In the Collection of the Medical Museion’:

The plaster busts of aged geniuses
adorn the storage room. They look a bit bereft
in their current situations, dispersed
on shelves and on the floor, turned face to face,
no space to best display their cast coiffures
and noble Roman noses carved with care.
Were the material a match, they might
appropriate some miscellaneous
components of a nearby skeleton
and, fashioning a makeshift catapult,
propel themselves to a more comfortable
repose. But wary of the brittleness
of paupers’ bones unearthed some centuries
ago, and fully conscious of their own
fragility, they bide their time,
await a label, a chance to be seen.
(Copenhagen, September 2007)

(from http://shannonhunt.com/historical/museion.html).

Thanks for this Shannon!

Many mysteries and fascinating aspects from the field of medicine have been discussed on this blog but I can’t remember that this interesting site has ever been mentioned. James G. Mundie’s Cabinet of Curiosity is a fascinating site and there is no doubt that the man behind is a skilled artist. 

But what is it all about? A quote might be in order:

What one will see here is not a random collection of bones and things in jars, but a record of an important segment of our shared medical heritage. These anatomical preparations represent the intersection of science, culture, emotion and myth. Through these oddities, one may catch snippets of the evolution of modern medicine based on science rather than superstition.

I wonder what he would get out of a visit to Medical Museion? Maybe we should invite him?

I’m probably not the only person who has a soft spot for unknown collections, especially if they turn out to be rich and reasonably well-curated.

Today I became aware of the odontological collection at the University of Oslo, which goes back to the 1880′s when the Norwegian Dentists Association began acquiring objects; it was handed over to the Norwegian State Institute of Dentistry in 1915 and was later taken over by the Odontological Faculty of the University of Oslo. Parts of the collection is displayed in a hallway in the faculty headquarters (above).

For the last 12 years, parts of the collection has been registered by a group of retired Norwegian dentists — and so far they have put 2266 objects online. See all the objects here. The search function of the database is not without problems and the quality of the descriptions and images is variable at best — but what a great artefact material!

Reminds me that we need to do something about our own in-house odontological collection — so many things to do, so many holes to fill out (pun intended).

An online-version of Adam’s, Camilla’s and my essay ”Between meaning culture and presence effects: contemporary biomedical objects as a challenge to museums” is now available on the website of Studies in History and Philosophy of Science.

Here’s the abstract of the paper:

The acquisition and display of material artefacts is the raison d’être of museums. But what constitutes a museum artefact? Contemporary medicine (biomedicine) is increasingly producing artefacts that do not fit the traditional museological understanding of what constitutes a material, tangible artefact. Museums today are therefore caught in a paradox. On the one hand, medical science and technologies are having an increasing pervasive impact on the way contemporary life is lived and understood and is therefore a central part of the contemporary world. On the other hand, the objects involved in medical diagnostics and therapies are becoming increasingly invisible and intangible and therefore seem to have no role to play as artefacts in a museum context. Consequently, museums are at risk of becoming alienated from an increasingly important part of contemporary society. This essay elaborates the paradox by employing Gumbrecht’s (2004) distinction between ‘presence’ and ‘meaning’.

Wish I could put the direct author’s link to the full version here, but Elsevier will most probably sue me if I do — so alas you will have to access it in a pay version (Science Direct) here or through your local university library (which most probably will give you access to Studies through one of their many subscription packages).

The printed version in Studies won’t be out until December or so.

Curators in medical museums that plan to get involved with the powerful practices of contemporary biomedical visualization (we all do, don’t we?) might learn something from the announced ‘Biomedical Visualisations and Society’ seminar and workshop series at the University of Warwick Medical School next spring with the aim 

• to critically explore the social and political implications of biomedical imaging
• to gain technical knowledge of visualisation
• to foster collaboration and networking between early-career researchers

Each of the four two-day workshop will combine a key-note lecture, time for discussion and an opportunity to engage with visualisation in practice. What distingushes this seminar series from many others is exactly the combination of theory and practical approaches.

• The Transparent body? Diagnostic Radiology, 26-27 January 2010. Keynote Speaker: Kelly Joyce, College of William and Mary, VA, USA. Includes a guided visit to the radiology department of the local hospital with Richard Wellings, Consultant Radiologist, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire.
• Anatomical Bodies: Plastinated Prosections in Medical Education, 13-14 April 2010. Keynote speaker: Maryon McDonald, University of Cambridge, UK. Includes an introduction to anatomy using plastinated body parts, by Peter Abrahams, Professor of Anatomy, University of Warwick.
• Virtual Reality and its Application to Healthcare, 24-25 May 2010. Keynote Speaker: Rachel Prentice, Cornell University, USA. Includes a visit to the Digital Lab, University of Warwick, guided by Professor Vinesh Raja.
• 3D Foetal Ultrasound, 6-7 July 2010. Keynote Speaker: Lisa M. Mitchell, University of Victoria, Canada Includes a visit to 4D scan provider ‘Babybond’, with company director Jan Steward.

The only thing that troubles me about this initiative is that the workshop/seminar website is so visually challenged. I mean, this is a scholarly field with plenty of first-class visual material — and then the website that is supposed to lure postgrad students to attend the workshops looks like it’s competing for the UKPVB (UK prize for visual boredom). Maybe they should have added an aim about tthe aesthetic implications as well :-)

My email inbox is continuously inundated with announcements for workshops, seminars, colloquia, conferences and other kinds of academic gatherings, covering all possible shades of the academic spectrum. Everything of the slightest interest for our job here in the museum gets some attention.

I must admit that over and over again I get a feeling of deja vu (“is there still someone who finds this kind of stuff interesting?”) — but sometimes an announcement pops up on the screen that brings me out of the state of boredom. Like the recent call for papers for a postgrad symposium on ’Mediated Memory: Of Monuments, Machines and Madeleines’ at the University of Glasgow, 29 January next year.

Sponsored by the AHRC‘s current “Beyond Text” programme (!), the symposium is organised in three panels, all of which are highly relevant for museum people interested in visual and material culture.

One deals with ‘monuments’ — the idea being that we memorialise ourselves and our achievements through the production and archiving of material structures and objects, “including architecture, artworks, music, text, museums and archives”. The panel shall investigate the relationship between the construction of memorial objects and modes of remembrance, and “the processes of creating, transmitting, storing and memorialising narratives through objects of memory”. A must-topic for collection curators.

Another panel centers on ‘machines’ in the form of mediating technologies for remembering, such as photography, video, phonography and the Web. The panel will “investigate the effects of the delegation of memory to machines ­technologies in a larger sense ­ upon human experience and its consequences for our personal and public past” (also very museum relevant, of course).

The third panel deals with one of my favourites — ‘madeleines’: “Sights, sounds, smells, tastes, all can transport us instantly”. The panel will explore “how such sensory encounters and chance remembrances inter-relate as well as the wider ways in which unintentional sites of memory participate in the constitution of our lifeworld”. This panel too is a gold mine for museum curators.

<200 word abstracts to m5symposium@googlemail.com by 25th November 2009 (sic!). Further details here.

German-speaking medical museum curators should be interested in a symposium on university museums and collections to be held at the Humboldt University, Berlin, 18 – 20 February 2010 , organised by the Hermann von Helmholtz-Zentrum fur Kulturtechnik and the Berliner Medizinhistorischen Museum der Charite:

Das Symposium setzt sich u.a. zum Ziel, gemeinsam nach neuen Aufgaben fur Universitätsmuseen und -sammlungen zu suchen, Strategien zu entwickeln, um den Fortbestand der Sammlungen sicherzustellen und Zukunftskonzepte zu erörtern, die traditionelle Universitätssammlungen besser in den Hochschulalltag integrieren und den heutigen Anspruchen von Forschung, Lehre und Wissenschaftskommunikation gerecht werden. Daruber hinaus soll ein Netzwerk fur Universitätsmuseen und -sammlungen im deutschsprachigen Raum etabliert werden, um den dringend erforderlichen Austausch von Erfahrungen und Kenntnissen in Gang zu setzen.

See further: http://universitaetsmuseen.hu-berlin.de (conference language will be German)

Historians of medicine have largely eschewed notions like ‘progress’ and ‘advance’ in medical science and medical practice in favour of more historicist and relativistic understandings. But for medical practitioners and patients alike, the notions of ‘progress’ and ‘advance’ usually make more sense. Some philosophers too think it is time to refocus on the idea of ‘medical progress’.

A forthcoming conference at the University of Bristol (13-15 April 2010) will address the following topics:

To identify progressive trends in current medicine, we need to understand the nature of historical progress more clearly. Has medicine always progressed? If not when did it begin to progress, and why? Historians have long debated these questions. Most recently, David Wootton’s controversial argument that medicine only started to progress in the late 19th century, has renewed interest on the nature of progress in medicine. These questions invite the following further questions.

We need to understand how progress in medicine should be measured. The range and effectiveness of available interventions is an obvious metric, but there has been considerable recent interest in preventive medicine. What are the limits of preventive medicine? Are preventive strategies truly medical, or an admission of the limitations of medicine?

There is a need for greater clarity on the nature of health and disease, if we are to understand progress in promoting the former and treating the latter. Are these concepts biostatistical (as Boorse argues) or partly normative (e.g. Kingma)? What role do social pressures, such as conceptions of acceptable weight, height or sexual characteristics play in shaping the distinction between medically necessary and elective interventions? Is health just the absence of disease, or does modern medicine need to acknowledge a more inclusive notion of well-being?

There is a particular need for greater clarity on these questions as they apply to psychological disorders and the various psychiatric, psycho-therapeutic, and psycho-pharmacological interventions designed to deal with them. The distinction between health and disease is especially unclear in the psychological case, and the history of medicine shows it to be especially fluid.

It is necessary to differentiate the perspectives of medical scientists, clinicians, and patients concerning the nature of progress, and related notions such as a successful treatment outcome. The most dramatic illustration of this need is perhaps the recent controversy on voluntary euthanasia, where Hippocratic principles appear to be at odds with patients’ own desires.

To further medical progress, it is necessary to identify its causes. Is progress driven by advances in basic physiological science? Or by clinical need? By some combination of these—in which case how do they interact?

Insofar as medical knowledge progresses, is there a single, unified methodology for generating that progress, e.g. ‘the scientific method as applied to medicine’? Recent debates concerning Evidence Based Medicine and randomized controlled trials have highlighted the need for clear answers to this question. Is the RCT a “gold standard”, or are there a number of ways of coming to know in medicine? Are these ways incommensurable, or does can a “hierarchy of evidence” (such as that advocated by proponents of EBM) provide a clinically useful basis of comparison and ranking?

The conference will encourage the involvement of methodologically interested medical professionals, philosophers of medicine and historians of medicine. More here.

We here at Medical Museion are always on the outlook for new and interesting institutional experiments to learn from. This week’s announcement of up-coming events at OBSERVATORY is inspirational:

The Culture of Curiosity is everywhere these days. Wunderkammern appear in popular art, cutting-edge fashion, film, books and museum exhibitions. This aesthetic has proved surprisingly durable and popular for over 600 years. From temple to home to museum, the Culture of Curiosity continues to exert an irresistible pull on our collective psyches, and it shows no signs of falling from favor any time soon.

I guess our (formerly) own Camilla — who has specialised in how the practice of the Wunderkammer can be transferred to present-day museum practice — couldn’t have said it better. (By the way, her book on Ole Worm’s Wunderkammer, Genstandsfortællinger, is about to be published in Danish…).

So here is OBSERVATORY’s current event programme:

• Friday, November 13th: The Culture of Curiosity – with Evan Michelson, co-owner of Obscura Antiques & Oddities(AKA “The Morbid Anatomy Gift Shop”).
• Sunday, November 15th: Cranioklepty: Grave Robbing and the Search for Genius – with Colin Dickey.
• Saturday, November 21st: Opening of OBSERVATORY’s next art exhibition, ALL SORTS OF REMEDIES: work by Herbert Pfostl.
• Friday, December 4th: Occult America – a talk by Mitch Horowitz.
• Thursday, December 10th: Exquisite Corpses – Illustrated Lecture and Artifacts from the Mütter Museum with the museum’s director, Robert D. Hicks.
• Friday, December 18th: Art as Magic and the Cold Hard Facts of Life: Herbert Pfostl in conversation with James Walsh.

Wish I lived in Brooklyn, NY. For CO2-reasons, I wouldn’t even think of flying over there. For more information, see www.observatoryroom.org