The management of health risks related to scientific and technological innovations has been the focus of a heated debate for a few years now. In some cases, like the campaigns against the use of GMOs in agriculture, this debate has degenerated into a political and social dispute. Even risk analysis studies, which appeared in the 1970s in the fields of nuclear physics and engineering and were later developed by social sciences as well, have given completely different, and at times contradictory, interpretations that, in turn, have given rise to bitter controversies.
I have been involved in College education since my days as a student in the Universidad de Buenos Aires. At that time, 1960, I helped to teach the course of Scientific Russian given in the Faculty of Sciences; strange as it might seem, the aim of the course was to allow the students to use scientific books especially in the area of Physics and Mathematics.
As recognized by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, the human community has reached a point in which it is faced with an array of choices that will determine the quality of our lives and the state of the global environment for present and future generations. One possibility is that at long last we will pave a path toward environmental stewardship and sustainable development. But it is also quite possible that we will travel a less enlightened course, running down the earth's natural capital and severely limiting the choices our descendants will face.
Through an iterative design process involving museum educators, learning scientists and technologists, and drawing upon our previous experiences in handheld game design and a growing body of knowledge on learning through gaming, we designed an interactive mystery game called Mystery at the Museum (the High Tech Whodunnit), which was designed for synchronous play of groups of parents and children over a two to three hour period. The primary design goals were to engage visitors more deeply in the museum, engage visitors more broadly across museum exhibits, and encourage collaboration between
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Eric KlopferJudy PerryKurt SquireMing-Fong JanConstance Steinkuehler
This study, requested by Smithsonian Secretary Lawrence Small, was conducted between April 2004 and May 2005, over all four seasons, and used the following methods: 1) open-ended interviews with 55 visit groups; 2) formal observations of a sample of 100 visitors, for which the observer estimated the age and gender of visitors and noted their paths, all stops over 3 seconds in length, what displays they looked at, and which hands-on devices they used; 3) a peer review panel comprised of seven ex- hibition specialists (curators, designers,writers, educators, and exhibition developers) who work
This article highlights four controversial exhibits from various institutions who, in the end, used controversy to their advantage. The authors include Kimberly Louagie, Curator of Exhibits at the Outagamie County Historical Society in Appleton, Wisconsin, Saudia Muwwakkil, Public Information Officer at the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site, Diane Perlov, Senior Vice President for Exhibits at the California Science Center, and John Russick, Curator at the Chicago Historical Society.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Kimberly LouagieSaudia MuwwakkilDiane PerlovJohn Russick