Biomedicine on Display

Today is World Philosophy Day (initiated by UNESCO in 2005), which gives University of Glasgow philosophy lecturer David Bain an occasion to ask one of these questions that generations of teachers have given their students for exams in moral philosophy: Should we kill healthy people for their organs?  

Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?

Consider another case: you and six others are kidnapped, and the kidnapper somehow persuades you that if you shoot dead one of the other hostages, he will set the remaining five free, whereas if you do not, he will shoot all six. (Either way, he’ll release you.)

If in this case you should kill one to save five, why not in the previous, organs case? If in this case too you have qualms, consider yet another: you’re in the cab of a runaway tram and see five people tied to the track ahead. You have the option of sending the tram on to the track forking off to the left, on which only one person is tied. Surely you should send the tram left, killing one to save five.

But then why not kill Bill?

Are students in medical ethics also asked that kind of questions? Or is it considered inappropriate in a Medical School?

(thanks to Tim Lewens for the tip)

Last year, Medical Museion co-organised a reading group titled “Towards a New Materialism? Exploring Artifactuality and Material Culture in History of Science, Technology and Medicine” together with the History of Technology Division at the Danish Technical University and the Research Policy Institute in Lund — and with Mats Fridlund (on-and-off guest researcher here at Medical Museion) as the main organiser and driving force. The reading group was a great success with some 10 PhD-students following it.

Now Mats is exporting the concept to his new provisional alma mater, the University of Aarhus, with a reading group along the same lines, titled “Things, Tools and Touch: Exploring New Materialisms in Science, Technology and Medicine Studies”. (First brown bag seminar after the intro seminar on 30 April, will be given by our own Adam Bencard, titled “Affects and Materiality” on 14 May.) Great initiative!

Joint university and museum PhD programmes is a great idea. But what about pre-specified, detailed project announcements? I thought about this when I saw an announcement on the Mersenne list this morning about two Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) PhD studentships in history of science, technology and medicine.

The posts are announced as collaborative research projects between on the one hand the Division of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Leeds and on the other hand the National Maritime Museum and the Thackray Museum, respectively. Great, internationally acknowledged institutions, no doubt about that. But what wonders me is that the project descriptions are so detailed in advance.

For example, the project with the Thackray Museum is called ”Industrial Illness in Cultural History: ‘La Maladie du Bradford’ in Local, National and Global Contexts (1875-1919), and the student is supposed to

investigate the impact of woolsorters’ disease or anthrax (as it later came to be known) on the Bradford community where the disease was first identified in the nineteenth century. Drawing on a range of archival and material resources at the Thackray and elsewhere, the project will also seek to assess the development of national legislation in response to the disease; place the disease in a global cultural context, especially that of the British Empire and Continental Europe; and map the interplay between the disease’s local, national and global contexts

(The museum connection is that the student ”is expected to create a virtual exhibit of project-related materials and also to contribute to local, national and international meetings”).

That’s a pretty precise project description! (Note: 1875-1919, not even 1920!) But is this a good idea? (It’s not a rhetorical question, I’m really unsure about this.)

Several of my colleagues here in Denmark have rather negative experiences from too pre-specified projects. Students who don’t formulate their own projects tend to drop out, my colleagues say, because they realise after a year or two that they aren’t really motivated.

This has been my intuition too. All my PhD-students have crafted their own projects, and they are now wonderfully independent scholars and professionals—which sort of speaks against pre-specified projects. But is their independence attributable to the fact that they followed their own vision? The negative side of the independently formulated project coin is that such projects are usually delayed – only two of my PhD students completed their projects in time; the others spent one, or two, or even three extra years. And then again, all these theses were great, almost all are either published or submitted for publication. So there may be pros and cons.

Leeds seems to have positive experiences with pre-specified projects, however, since this is the third collaborative doctoral project between the Leeds HPS division and the Thackray Museum. And I’ve heard about other predetermined projects in our field. In fact, it looks like it has become more common in the last decade or so.

Do other institutions have any experiences with this? Any opinions out there?

Apropos our former discussion about blogs and exhibitions – here’s another way of integrating the two genres:

In yesterday’s Material World blog, Haidy Geismar, an anthropologist at New York University, relays the experiences of teaching a class in material culture studies together with Robin Nagle, an anthropologist-in-residence at the New York Department of Sanitation (DSNY).

Titled “Making a Museum: Materializing Regimes of Value with the New York Department of Sanitation”, the class worked closely with the DSNY to collect and curate material that could be used for a future museum of sanitation.

The DSNY archive was restricted to ”a series of mouldy cardboard boxes” and the artefacts were scattered all around, so the students collected archival material, interviewed managers and workers, and did ethnographic fieldwork into “the contemporary landscape of garbage in the city”. In short, they engaged in a kind of “social activism” – “to not only teach the public more about the job, about waste management and the cultural landscape of trash, but to publicly integrate the DSNY into the fabric of the city in a representational as well as practical way”.

Integral to the process was the class blog (authorized access only, unfortunately) — used to post continuous commentary on their own work, to devise key word lists for the archive, and to share media clips and articles on the subject. It was also used ”to discuss issues of copyright and fair use, and to talk about the limitations of the different fields in the archive on how we were framing and presenting our newly created digital objects”.

“In this way”, says Heidy Geismar, “both blog and archive were tools in the imagination of what a museum both is and could be”.

The grand finale of the course was a small one-room exhibition which opened on December 12 in the DSNY’s Derelict Vehicles Office. They used artefacts ”to recreate an old-school style locker rooms”, they put their archive on display, and they permeated the place with a soundscape “evoking the gathering of trash in the city”. For press coverage of the exhibition, see here.

Small exhibition, yes. But Heidy Geismar’s enthusiastic report is contagious — and a wonderful example of how teaching, blogging, and collective exhibition work can be integrated.

With respect to the PLUS (Public Learning and Understanding of Science) aspect of our work, we, as a public outreach-oriented university department and museum, are in constant competition with web-based media — so I guess it’s important for us to get an overview of what is happening out there.

My general feeling is that the whole PLUS field is undergoing quite profound changes right now. For example, the rapid expansion of web-based science lectures has strenghtened the direct channels between specialists and the general public (and channels that host specialists), at the expense of mediation by science journalists and professionals in science didactics.

What’s happening is analogous, I think, to what’s going on in the field of medical and health information. It’s well-known that internet-savvy patients are increasingly shortcutting the primary health system to learn about their conditions through the web instead. Educated and well-informed health consumers prefer to search for specialised knowledge directly on the web instead of passing by their GP (in this case literally the ‘general’ practioner).

Likewise, educated people who want to know more about biotech and biomedicine tend to bypass the traditional media and search for knowledge closer to the research source (although not as close as research articles).  

Many universities, especially in the US, are increasingly putting their biotech and biomedicine lecture material on-line. You can find pod- and videocasts about almost anything in biotech and biomedicine that your heart may desire. I found this Openculture post (from October 2006, but updated through continuous comments) quite useful for an overview of what’s available.

There are also some good commercial ressources, for example the Henry Stewart Talks series of over 500 audiovisual presentations, made by leading biotech and biomedicine scientists who lecture about recent developments in their special fields. These are up-to-date and are probably as good as any specialised biotech and biomedicine science lecture you can attend in your own elite university (and thus heftily priced).

So with respect to PLUS purposes, science museums and science centers are in a severe competition with both commercial and open source web-based teaching tools. Downloadable (and sometimes animated) videos and pod- and videocasts are increasingly doing a much better job than museums on the PLUS front.

I guess this competion will force science museums to rethink their strengths and strategies. If they cannot compete on the PLUS arena, what can they instead provide better than web-based media? As web-based ‘public learning and understanding of biotech and biomedicine’ becomes better and better, the answer to that question becomes more and more urgent.

For those who cannot live without their daily dosis of radiological (x-ray, CT, PET, or ultrasound) picture exposure I highly recommend Radiology Picture of the Day, a fusion blog that combines medical professionality with an apparent urge to display iconographically compelling material.

Almost every day since November 2006, Laughlin Dawes, a radiology registrar at Prince of Wales Hospital in Randwick outside Sydney, has put a picture on his blog — either from his own clinic or sent in by one of the twelwe radiologists around the world that regularly provide him with material.

The use of specialist medical vocabulary in the captions indicates that the aim of the radpod-blog is to be informative and didactic, not to provide aesthetic experiences — but where to draw the line?

The most popular pic (by number of clicks?) among the ~300 put on display so far is this ultrasound pic of gallbladder polyps:

It is said to demonstrate “multiple non-shadowing, non-mobile, polypoid lesions .. typical of cholesterol polyps, representing the focal form of gallbladder cholesterolosis”. More info for specialists here.

The radpod-blog is but one example of a large number of blogs and websites that furnish the web with a rapidly growing number of internal body pictures, which in turn contribute to what one might call web-generated ‘body-mindedness’? (This is in fact something that Jan Eric is working on right now, using the endoscope as a case in point.)

I just discovered a description of Sev Fowles’s “Thing Theory” spring 2007 seminar at Dept of Archaeology, Columbia University. It has an excellent reading list and a clever way of structuring the whole course through the themes of psychologised, sacred, socialised, fetishised, subjectivised and technologised objects. A very inspiring syllabus for a new version (?) of the “Towards a New Materialism” postgraduate seminar next year. They have also put the participants’ essays on the net. A wonderful example of intellectual generosity.

Dansk Medicinsk-historisk Selskab belønner hvert år en studenteropgave inden for det medicin- og helsehistoriske område i bredeste forstand, herunder også odontologi og farmaci. Studenterprisen er på kr. 10.000.

Præmien kan tildeles en eksamensopgave, f. eks. bachelor- eller OSVAL-opgave, der er blevet bedømt i det år, præmien uddeles i. Dog er specialer undtaget. Både studerende og vejledere kan indstille en opgave til prisen.

Læs nærmere om prisopgaven og indleveringsfrist hos Dansk Medicinsk-historisk Selskab eller kontakt Søren Bak-Jensen.

I cannot really explain why I’m so fascinated with this eight-minute animation of molecular mechanisms within the cell? “The Inner Life of a Cell” was created for Harvard University biology students by XVIVO, a scientific animation company. Turn off the accompanying music-hall piano sound and enjoy the “slithering, gliding and twisting through 3D space”.

There are many other cell biology and molecular biology animations out there (see e.g., this on DNA replication, from 2003), but this XVIVO-Harvard product is good, I think, because, as Jim Endersby says, it’s like “Terminator 2 meets a biology textbook”. It’s both good animation and pretty realistic cell and molecular biology at the same time.

If you want an explanation of what goes on during the eight minutes, read this blog post — and for a discussion of the animation work behind it, read this article in Animation Magazine. The short movie raises a whole array of questions about how animation technology can be developed for visual representations of science for didactic and other display uses, and also questions about the interface between art, animation technology, cell biology and molecular design.
(thanks to Jim Endersby, Cambridge for an inspiring mail earlier tonight)

Intute, the internet service for education and research created by a consortium of UK universities, has just launched a very useful tutorial for historians to the internet. It is primarily written for general historians in the UK, but the general advices and the topics chosen can easily be transferred to other national contexts and to, e.g., medical history. It is especially useful for medical and public health students who want to write historical essays but spontaneously tend to be quite naïve in their use of internet information and sources. Intute have hundreds of similar tutorials for a large number of subjects across the disciplines. Enjoy!

Her er en tilbageblik på et studieforløb fra en af de medicinstuderende, som hvert år skriver opgaver på Medicinsk Museion. Mikkel Myatt skrev sin OSVAL II-opgave (en 8 ugers skriftlig opgave på lægestudiets 10 – 12. semester) om ”Psykiatriens historie fra 1970’erne til i dag – oplæg til en udstilling”. Ideen var at undersøge hvilken slags genstande, billeder og dokumenter der vil kunne indsamles fra psykiatriske afdelinger, hvis man vil give et billede af psykiatriens nutidshistorie, som jo i høj grad er præget af den såkaldte ’psykofarmakologiske revolution’.
Continue Reading »

A good seminar idea worth emulating: post-graduate students in the Department of the History and Philosophy of Science (Cambridge) have a joint seminar where they present their research based on objects from the collections of the Whipple Museum of the History of Science. In today’s seminar, Friday 19 May (why do they always announce these events so late?) the following will present their object-research projects:
- Melanie Keene, ‘Every boy & girl a scientist’: instruments for children in inter-war Britain
- Sophia Davis, The pocket electronic calculator in advertising: touching numbers
- Salim Al-Gailani, Twentieth century toy chemistry sets: Cultures of magic, science and masculinity
- Margaret Olszewski, Papier-mâché flowers, fruits and seeds: the botanical models of Louis Thomas Jerôme Auzoux.

There are still a few vacant seats around the table at the Copenhagen station of the Max Planck Research Network’s European Wandering Seminar, “History of Scientific Objects”, 8 - 12 May. Remaining seats will be distributed according the first-come-first-seated principle. PhD students will have priority. Participation fee is 300 DKK per day (including coffee and lunches). Inquiries to Thomas Söderqvist, Medical Museion, ths@mm.ku.dk, not later than Friday 5 May at noon.
Program (can also be read on Hugin & Munin) and background literature:
Continue Reading »

How do members of the public perceive biomedicine and biomedical scientists? What kind of experiences may lie behind these perceptions? And how do they change? These are crucial questions to be asked by any medical history museum that has the intention, somehow, to contribute to the public understanding of medicine. So far the answer is: We really don’t know. But something could perhaps be learned from a social experiment made by the Education Office at The Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.
Continue Reading »

The Whipple Museum of the History of Science in Cambridge has launched a new internetbased teaching aid for school children, called Gallery Challnge. See http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/whipple/gallerychallenge. They invite to a reception on Tuesday 14th February, 1-3pm, in the Whipple Museum Main Gallery, Department of HPS, Free School Lane, Cambridge.