Biology:

• Center of Science and Industry (COSI) — Columbus, OH —  Geckos ($15/adult)
• Museum of Science and Industry — Chicago — Body Worlds, plasticized bodies ($27/adult)
• The Tech Museum of Innovation — San Jose, CA — Body Worlds, plasticized organs ($19/adult)
• Museum of Science Boston — Birds, bees, butterflies ($26/adult)
• Exploration Place — Wichita, KS — Megalodon, a monster shark ($10/adult, add $3 for minigolf)
• California Academy of Science — Baby chicks ($30/adult)
• California Science Center — Ecosystems (free)
• Detroit Science Center — Animatronic dinosaurs ($20/adult)

History & archeology:

• Denver Museum of Nature and Science — Pirates ($22/adult)
• Franklin Institute — Philadelphia, PA — Leonardo da Vinci’s models ($25/adult)
• Science Museum of Minnesota — King Tutankhamun ($18/adult)
• Oregon Museum of Science and Industry — Egyptian pyramids and mummification ($12/adult)

Physics & Engineering:

• Exploratorium — San Francisco, CA — Skateboard science ($15/adult)
• Liberty Science Center — Jersey City, NJ — Skyscrapers ($16/adult)
• Pacific Science Center — Seattle, WA — Star Wars ($20/adult)
• Discovery Science Center — Santa Ana, CA — A bubble spectacular: Bubblefest ($24/adult)

In addition to these features, these science centers have other permanent exhibitions, and most have IMAX movies.

To the public, it’s largely immaterial.

Background

The first science museums began to develop in the 18th and 19th centuries as naturalist or natural history museums with collections on display to educate the public. They had a Victorian passion for collecting and classifying the wonders of nature, although a number of museums began earlier in the industrial revolution as centers for the promotion of technology.  For example, the Wagner Free Institute in Philadelphia, founded in the 1850’s, is still filled with Victorian cabinets of neatly mounted specimens, systematically arranged by classification.  Some collections-based science museums include: the American Museum of Natural History (1869), New York; Denver Museum of Nature and Science (1900); California Academy of Sciences (1853), and also living collections like zoos.

The science center movement, which had a greater emphasis on the use of technology to educate, began in the beginning of the 20th century. Some of the first major such institutions (which were not called science centers at that time) include: Deutsches Museum, Munich (1903); Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago (1933); and Franklin Institute, Philadelphia (1934).

Institutions can fall anywhere along the continuum. For example, nature centers often incorporate components of both, and children’s museums are typically not collection based.

Learning vs. history or research

There was recently a casual discussion among museum/center insiders on a public email list. Here’re some of the views…

Charles Carlson, senior scientist at the Exploratorium, says, “The hallmark of science centers is a focus on emotional and intellectual engagement, they’re a somewhat theatrical production of science with an attention to verisimilitude. Engagement varies with people, cultures and social recognition and time. It will into the foreseeable future.”

Beryl Rosenthal, executive director of the Waterworks Museum, says “science centers are far and away much more savvy about how visitors learn, and how to utilize technology more effectively… They also have a greater sense of humor. However, museums have a much clearer sense of their own collective history and place in society.”

Rita Mukherjee Hoffstadt, an assistant director at the Franklin Institute agrees, “because there are many more science and children’s informal education institution that are ‘centers’ due to their relatively youthful age and, overall ASTC/ACM institutions tend to be more progressive with respect to how they interface with visitors in comparison to the rest of the ‘museum’ field. But speaking for science/children’s ‘museums,’ I think we are just as interested as ‘centers’ are in engaging our visitors in impactful learning.”

Jeff Rosenblatt, director of Science City at the Union Station Kansas City, says visitors at a museum expect their overall experience to be passive: Observe, read/view, discuss, reflect. Wheras, at a science center, visitors expect their experience to be active: Participate, observe, read/view, discuss, reflect.

Erich Rose, an exhibit designer and developer, says “some of those older ‘museums’ don’t just collect, they also do research and publish. All directly related to the subjects they cover. We now see a great deal of publication in our world of Informal Learning but it is not quite the same.” He wonders how many science centers, children’s museums and other non-traditional museums are doing peer-reviewed scientific or historical research.

Also, a smaller issue is politics. Martin Weiss, a science interpretation consultant for the New York Hall of Science notes that it depends on whether the institution wants to be certified by the ASTC, or AAM.

Public views

Erich Rose says the “discussion is splitting hairs amongst the very people who already have internalized the differences and is 99% meaningless to the general public.” And Kim Hunter, senior director or exhibit development at the Orlando Science Center says, “I can guarantee you the public is also not sure what a science center is.”

But science centers do seem to have disassociated themselves from museums to an extent in the popular imagination. Joe Hastings, executive director of the Don Harrington Discovery Center in Texas, says that his science center does not appear in the local newspaper in the “Museum” section, but rather under “Attractions” alongside Chuck-e-Cheese, Wonderland amusement park, and the local snake farm. Hastings says, “We used to be a bit sensitive about being lumped in with mice, roller coasters, and rattlesnakes, but I’ve grown comfortable with the idea that families come to us seeking an enjoyable, leisure-time activity.”

Source: These quotes and comments are all based on recent discussion by science center staff on a email discussion list run by the Association of Science-Technology Centers. There are additional comments in that thread which are an interesting read.

For additional reading, see: Friedman, A. 1996. ” The Evolution of Science and Technology Museums” The Informal Science Review (pp.1, 14-17) (March/April 1996)… and an October 2010 article by Allan Friedman on the evolution of science museums from early twentieth century natural history through museums such as CMSI to contemporary science centers. Also, Karen Rader at Virginia Commonwealth University is currently writing a book about the history of science museums.

Visitors learned first-hand what it’s like to pull a young Mandrake from its pot, and they delighted in wizardry. The science was thin, but like other blockbusters, the goal was to bring visitors in the door, draw money to the museum’s coffers, and get the general public to think more positively about science in general. “There’s no escaping that popular culture is popular,” said Paul Fontaine to the Boston Globe. Fontaine is vice president of education at the Museum of Science in Boston (the second host of the exhibit), and acknowledged that there was “some real concern about why is this at a science museum.” He noted, however, that there was a “huge competition for this exhibit” and that exhibits linked to pop culture are increasingly common. “Star Wars,” “CSI,” superheroes, and “Lord of the Rings” exemplify the pop culture exhibit emphasis. Boston museum CEO Miaoulis underscored the value of lowering the intellectual bar, saying in a statement, “We’re confident that this exhibition will attract visitors of all ages—some of whom may never have visited a science center. This exhibit will spark their curiosity and imagination, leading them to experience the excitement of discovery that’s also at the heart of the museum’s science and technology exhibits and programs.”

The blockbuster approach works, at least where attendance and money are concerned. According to Bob Fisher, CFO at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, these kinds of exhibits often boost attendance by 20-40%, with the Harry Potter exhibit delivering around a 40% attendance boost. Part of the boost is because temporary exhibits provide a call to action to visit a particular museum. The quantity of science might not matter a lot, but a blockbuster does need to fit their mission. Mr. Fisher notes that his museum declined the Mummies exhibit, which they felt was better suited for the Field museum, a few miles north in Chicago.

A large traveling exhibit (e.g., Harry Potter, Body Worlds, Leonardo da Vinci’s Workshop, Mummies) can cost host museums up to $2 million to rent, depending on the content, brand name, and duration, though the exact licensing terms are closely guarded. Mr. Fisher says the cost for most blockbuster exhibits tends to hover in the same overall range. Occasional sensations like King Tut can cost more. In addition to rental fees, large shows require marketing expenses and extra staff (Harry Potter took 10 full-time staff).

Like movies or books, this kind of traveling exhibit is produced by companies hoping to turn a profit. For topics suitable for a short run, the costs are spread over several hosts. The Harry Potter show was produced by GES, a subsidiary of Viad Corp, which produces permanent and semi-permanent exhibits for trade shows, museums, and other venues, and bills itself as an “experiential marketing agency…creating meaningful and memorable brand experiences.” GES fronted the costs for management, design, development, production, materials, and licensing (from Warner Bros. Consumer Products), and produced an exhibit that they then pitched to science centers. So far, GES has drawn lease income on the 10,000 sq. foot (1,300 sq. meter) Harry Potter show from four hosts. It opened at Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry (summer 2009), moved to the Museum of Science, Boston (winter 2009/2010), Ontario Science Centre (summer 2010), and ends its U.S. run this weekend at the Pacific Science Center in Seattle. Ticket prices were approximately $25 per adult and $15 per child.

Museum memberships at MSI Chicago were strong in 2009 because of the Harry Potter exhibition.

MSI Chicago had a burst in attendance and membership (graph at right). Similarly, according to the Boston museum’s 2010 annual report, their total attendance was 1,735,000, up 10.8% over 2009’s attendance—thanks largely to Harry Potter. The exhibition helped set the record for the highest attendance in a one-week period during February 2010 vacation week, attracting 108,198 visitors.

Exhibitors prefer their cash up front, as a fixed fee, but museum administrators prefer to diffuse the risk with licensing agreements based on revenue share. According to Mr. Fisher, having exhibitors put some skin in the game spreads the risk, but regardless of the licensing agreement, the exhibitors rarely contribute much to promoting an exhibit. That’s up to the host museum.

In considering whether to lease a new traveling exhibit, Fisher says they try to predict incremental revenue and expenses, not only for the tickets for the special show, but also revenue from general admission, parking, etc. Similarly, Michal Anderson, CFOO of the Pacific Science Center, the fourth host for Harry Potter, says, “It is always difficult to project the types of net revenue expected from blockbuster exhibits. On blockbuster exhibits, the cost to bring the exhibit to the center is so high, it often does not bring in more than general admission for a smaller exhibit. There is also a risk that the exhibit will not generate enough ticket sales to both pay for the increased rental fee, and cover the normal general admission revenue expected for that time of year.  Of course there could be upswings from ancillary sources such as membership, café and parking. For Harry Potter, we experienced a significant increase in membership, the effects of which will carry on for several years….Additionally, the day-time ticket included general admission to Pacific Science Center and exposed thousands of people to our science, math and technology exhibits and programs for the very first time.”

The seventh installment of the Harry Potter film franchise, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, Part 1,” earned $943.3m in worldwide ticket sales. Movie costs and revenue are public. But due to confidentiality agreements, the finances of museum exhibits are opaque. Ms. Anderson says she does not “share exhibit fees with colleagues, nor do they share them with me. Each science center must forecast the results of a particular exhibit and make the decision whether or not to move forward, and it is certainly not without risk.” This is echoed by Mr. Fisher, and John Slakey, VP of Finance for the Museum of Science, Boston, who says, “The revenue and cost information regarding our blockbuster exhibits is confidential and we do not share it externally.”

Pop culture gets visitors in the door. And movie studios appreciate the opportunity to further monetize their brand. But when content is driven by marketing executives, science education is not part of the equation. Alongside with Happy Meals and T-shirts, movie studies have a new marketing channel. Brad Globe, president of Warner Bros. Consumer Products division (which handles licensing and merchandising deals) said in a statement, “Fans around the world will finally be able to see the incredible craftsmanship and detail that went into creating their favorite props and costumes.” And the CEO of the exhibit production company, Glenn Tilley, said he was proud to be a “source of creative entertainment-based attractions,” following on their prior collaborations with Warner Brothers, “Happy Feet Snow Globe Experience” and the “Fred Claus Snow Globe Experience.”

What does the growth of pop-culture blockbuster exhibits mean? Is it a sign that a science museum is obsolete? Or does it represent a bold move towards museums engaging a broader public and gaining financial independence from governments and donors?