This article addressed the controversy surrounding the Smithsonian's exhibit entitled Science in American Life. This article, written by the curator of the exhibit, primarily looked at scientists' views of the exhibit.

      Science in American Life was an attempt to address the relationship between science and society in America over the past 125 years. The main message was that science has had a major influence on American culture and consciousness.

      The controversy highlights some of the challenges which a museum faces when presenting science and technology to the public. Some of the challenges include changing public perceptions, scientists' feelings about those perceptions, and the symbolic importance science has assumed in constructing national identity.

      Science has been linked with state patronage, pride, and power as far back as the Renaissance. Late in the last century, museums of science and technology were founded to commemorate science's contribution to industry. They implicitly, and sometimes even explicitly, reinforced these associations. They also promoted science as a pillar of national strength and culture.

      Today, though, a museum needs to represent science in a broader, more historical context. Questions about the ownership of science, and relations among scientists, funding sources, and the public need to be addressed.

      For the first 9 ½ decades of the twentieth century, the scientific community in America did an excellent job of identifying its goals with the nations. It primarily emphasized the practical importance of scientific research – the high standard of living, victory over disease, improved life expectancy, and as a pillar of national security. World War I was known as the "chemist's war," while World War II was known as the "physicist's war."

      A deep contradiction has always run through American science, though, as scientists attempted to project an image of science for its own sake, "pure science." This represents a significant dilemma, as the scientific community recognizes that its public funding relies on the publics' belief in the usefulness of science.

      Government funding of "Big Science" began with World War II, while the Cold War gave scientists practically unlimited access to the public coffers. The atomic and space ages gave scientists unprecedented public esteem, and infused scientific values into the American consciousness. Sporadic challenges arose during the late 1960's and 1970's with the advent of the countercultural and environmental movements.

      The end of the Cold War signaled the end of unlimited public funding and support. This was best represented when the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) was cancelled in September 1993. Scientists began to worry about reduced funding and diminishing public support of sciences' status and authority.

      The Science in American Life exhibit began in 1987 when the American Chemical Society (ACS) offered to fund a science display at the Smithsonian. The ACS was beginning a renewed public outreach program designed to recruit young people to the profession, and to enhance public support for, and appreciation of chemistry. They chose the Smithsonian because of its high visibility, large attendance, and cultural prestige.

      Robert Park, chief public relations officer for the American Physical Society (APS), took exception to the Science in American Life exhibit's anti-science bias in an on-line newsletter in the summer of 1994. He took particular exception to the case studies of the atomic bomb, a 1957 fallout shelter, DDT, and CFCs as examples of this anti-science attitude. Many scientists, including the officers of the APS and of the ACS, the exhibit's sponsor, joined in these claims. Park claimed that the exhibit was turning visitors against science.

      A visitor study was commissioned to specifically test this allegation. It showed that visitor responses were quite the opposite. Visitors entered with a positive view of American sciences' contributions, which were reinforced and confirmed by the exhibit. The exhibit did not change these views in either direction.

      So what drove these charges? It seems to have been a frustrated sense of nationalism and a sense of alienation from the general culture. The cancellation of the SSC was viewed as a failure American science, when it had been an opportunity to demonstrate our superiority, and the power of basic research to generate new fundamental knowledge, and applied benefits as well. The display of the fallout shelter was viewed as casting doubt on science's patriotic war effort. Thus, scientists retreated to a transcendent stance, arguing that they were above politics and the uses of research, and thus above culture even. The rise of environmentalism caused some scientists to be reluctant to accept their diminishing social and cultural authority.

      Science has made itself a powerful part of the American identity over the past century. It sought massive amounts of public support based on its positive contributions to society. When the public questioned that contribution, science tried to lay claim to purity and transcendence.

Source: Molella, Arthur P., Science in American Life, National Identity, and the Science Wars: A Curator's View in Curator, April 1999, pp. 108-116.