Royal Society of Chemistry says chemistry is underrepresented in museums compared to physics and bio
Recently the Royal Society of Chemistry claimed that chemistry is underrepresented in museums. Why is this the case? Is it it a problem that chemistry is not represented more prominently in museums?
Source: play.google.com
I don't know if there is a good justification for enhancing the profile of chemistry in museums. It is one of the more abstract sciences. The more abstract something is in terms of how people can interpret it, the more difficult it is for people to understand it.
Chemistry is relatively abstract. Physics is also, but it is often easier to illustrate. With physics you can shows space stations and rockets. Biology is the easiest because you can show different living organism. Chemistry might be the most difficult to illustrate. It is not, however, impossible. There are good exhibits about certain areas of chemistry. I have seen some good crystal exhibits that show the organization of matter. For example, you can use substances ranging from precious stones, like diamonds, to less precious substances, like coal, to illustrate different forms of carbon.
Also there are also probably more curators who have studied some phyics or biology, than there are curators with backgrounds chemistry.
It is true that museums are one of the principle means of perpetuating interest in a subject from one generation to another. Museums do that by providing, or enhancing, education in a particular subject. Thus, the Royal Society of Chemistry may be rightly concerned about chemistry being underrepresented in museums.
