Background
When I left the Hunterian Museum at the Royal College of Surgeons in 2007 I was aware that the displays telling the story of surgery since 1960 were incomplete two years after the museum re-opened. There were a number of reasons for this delay:
21. Staff were not subject specialists in this period;
22. Difficulty in identifying key surgeons and technicians to help with each specialist area;
23. Surgeons in current practice were unable to devote enough time to the museum;
24. Key developments in the story did not translate to suitable display objects and what were the key developments anyway;
25. Difficulty in collecting current material.

This was a new reality for us but it is probably quite common across medical museums. We are more comfortable displaying medical history. Our collections are mostly from the 19th and early 20th centuries and randomly acquired over time rather than selected as we have to do when we collect contemporary material. We are not usually medically qualified ourselves but historians so we feel happier dealing with the past. Modern objects are unwieldy or unattractive, the science is more complex and we need professional help to understand the science before we present the stories to our visitors. Furthermore we are under pressure from our boards and committees; doctors like new things and are keen for us to show the latest treatment or piece of technology as they think that it will make the museum more ‘relevant’. I think this is an issue not only for medical museums. Art museums tend to segregate past from present but military museums face the same challenges as medical museums. They aim to bring their visitors close to troops fighting remote foreign wars by showing computer warfare and a desert hut but the effect is to diminish the activity to kit and uniforms.

Project
I wanted to investigate this further by asking what our visitors thought and the reasons why they visit medical museums in the first place. Over the summer I have been speaking to visitors in the Thackray Museum, Leeds, (where I am a trustee) and my former museum, the Hunterian Museum in London. Questions have covered three main areas: motivation for visit; the visit and background and experience of the visitor. At time of writing I have managed to speak to 55 visitors but hope to speak to more before September. Even from this small sample a number trends have emerged. This is not a scientific study and surveying over the summer has skewed the evidence with less school parties and more overseas visitors. I wanted to speak to the ‘casual’ visitor who came on their own initiative. With all these caveats I still think that the results show that there is something to consider.
First, I will give a brief description of the museums I used. The Thackray Museum, located in a former workhouse adjacent to St James Hospital, was founded in 1995 with a core collection of surgical instruments made by the Thackray Company. Significant collections have been added since, e.g. Wilkinson Collection of drug jars and the Stevens’ collection of hearing aids. It is the largest medical museum in UK outside the Science Museum in London. It was designed as an education venue and key displays include: a Leeds Street in 1842, an amputation scene and having a baby. The permanent displays finish in 1995 but the Life Zone, a gallery for families and primary school children about the functions of the body, and a semi-permanent gallery sponsored by de Puy showing replacement ‘body parts’ have been added. The Hunterian Museum, located in the centre of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, displays the surviving collection of John Hunter, an 18th century anatomist and surgeon. Around the human and animal specimens there are supporting displays explaining Hunter’s life and times and further displays show the main surgical developments since the 18th century and the development of surgical instruments. The Thackray Museum has around 80,000 visitors each year and charges an admission fee while the Hunterian Museum has 45,000 visitors and is free.

Results
The results are divided into evidence resulting from asking a series of set questions and then an anecdotal section where I outline visitors’ ideas and feedback. I only spoke to those who had seen all around the museums.

Motivation %
Personal interest 45
Recommendation (word of mouth or media) 20
Other (including 20% for exam revision) 35

Visit
First visit 80
Visited other medical museums 25
Expected to see modern medicine 40
Remembered the contemporary displays 50
Remembered the historical displays 50

About the visitor
Medical professional or in training 30
Related to or knows a medical professional 55
Extensive hospital/health experience 5
None at all 10

Regularly watch popular medical dramas (soaps) 55
Do not seek medical information 20

Male 30
Female 70
Under 16 18
16-25 23
26-35 17
36-45 15
46-55 7
56-65 13
66-75 2
Over 75 2
No age given 3

White British 66
Black British 14
Overseas 20

My discussions with visitors focussed on their interest in contemporary medicine, their views of the displays in the museums and ideas on what other subjects they would like to see presented in the museums. There were differences between visitors to the two museums. Students revising for the History of Medicine exam were exclusive to the Thackray while only visitors to the Hunterian Museum visited other medical museums, principally the Old Operating Theatre Museum and the Wellcome Collection, both in London. The Hunterian Museum received more overseas visitors as one would expect in London but the Thackray Museum had more displays of contemporary medicine which made more impact on visitors. Most visitors had some connection with the medical world and consequently wanted to see subjects such as health economics, medical ethics and basic healthcare covered. They seemed to echo our boards in wanting to turn the medical museum into a public health education centre. All the students at the Thackray Museum and many other young visitors only wanted to see the displays on 19th century medicine and public health. A high proportion of all visitors (20%) were not interested in current health issues although those that were showed a healthy lack of trust in websites other then BBC or National Health Service (NHS) direct and their own General Practitioner. It was unsurprising to find out that most visitors admitted to watching popular medical dramas (soaps), for both the dramatic content and for the medical environment. First time visitors found it quite difficult to comment on what they had seen especially in the Hunterian Museum where the mass of animal and human specimens was overpowering. Although there were significantly more female than male visitors, young men were interested in the ‘having a baby’ area in the Thackray Museum and the display of foetuses in the Hunterian Museum. Visitors remembered the interactive units such as in the life zone at the Thackray and the operation videos and keyhole surgery activity in the Hunterian but not any detail about the displays. However, the horrors of the past treatments, diseases and doctors were vividly recalled.

Further thoughts
Can we assume that with 85% of visitors having some kind of connection with the medical world, we are preaching to the converted and satisfying our key stakeholders rather than challenging and informing our general visitors? People are surrounded by medical information from the media. Snippets from medical journals are placed out of context in tabloid newspapers. TV broadcasts sensational medical dramas and grotesque documentaries side by side with serious programmes and health studies. Where do medical museums sit within this overload? I am sure that special exhibitions and events relating to current medicine, carefully planned for target audiences with modest learning outcomes, do have a place in our museums, but, from this small encounter, I would suggest that visitors adopt a general museum approach and glide through the displays as they would any other museum. Displays showing current practice help to put our historic collections into context but our museums should not be a comprehensive source of up-to date medical information.

Back to EAMHMS list of absracts