Image via Hyperallergic
The Background Info:
People gathered outside of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History on Monday to protest against David Koch's position on the advisory board for the museum.
The upset is over The David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins and the exhibition which "offers visitors an immersive, interactive journey through 6 million years of scientific evidence for human origins and the stories of survival and extinction in our family tree during times of dramatic climate instability."
There is concern that the Smithsonian is taking on a conflict of interests between their mission to "increase knowledge and inspire learning about nature and culture, through outstanding research, collections, exhibitions, and education, in support of a sustainable future" and Koch Industries, Inc. being "involved in refining, chemicals, biofuels and ingredients; forest and consumer products; fertilizers; polymers and fibers; process and pollution control equipment and technologies; electronic components; commodity trading; minerals; energy; ranching; glass; and investments."
There is also an observed conflict of interest between Koch funding the Smithsonian's Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon's climate skepticism.
ThinkProgress reports that: "The exhibit centers on a relatively new hypothesis, based largely in speculation, that extreme climate change in the past made humans incredibly adaptable. It also claims that humans will continue to adapt to future extreme climate change, illustrating this idea with an interactive video that lets visitors create future humans that have adapted to warmer temperatures simply by growing taller or adding more sweat glands."
To Muse:
Due to the political charge the Koch brothers carry, I do not want to muse on how the Koch brothers are benefactors of the fossil fuel industry and use their staggering wealth in areas of science, politics, and the environment. I will also save the effects of evolution and adaptability of humans throughout the ages for someone else. What I want to talk about is the relationship between the museum as a servant and voice of the communities they serve within the context of this charged conflict of interest.
An unidentified ex-Smithsonian employee stated to Hyperallergic: " “They’re too demanding … you have to have leverage to make demands,” he noted. The cause was not lost on him. Having been involved in environment-related protests in the past, he said he agreed with the fundamental premise of their argument, but he didn’t think their “preachy” approach would have any productive impact on Koch or the Smithsonian. “It’s a moral issue, yes, but they’re saying it’s ‘the’ moral issue, and it’s not.” "
There would appear to be several issues at play. The first is that a board member who actively works against the research the museum does was allowed to join. The second is that this board member funded specific research within the museum itself that contradicts other research done by the museum and that of the greater scientific community. Contradicting research is not, in itself, a bad thing--science should always be questioned--but when coupled with the first issue and the substantial research and data proving otherwise raises suspicions. The third is that there is a permanent exhibition with the name of the questionable board member attached to it and visitors are seeing/sensing the contradictions as meant to be taken as truth. When the voice of the museum, even in a single exhibition, becomes mainly sponsored by a single person who also has board member power and influence, there is clear conflict of interest.
Museums are here to serve their communities. Via the American Alliance of Museums' Code of Ethics for Museums:
"Museums in the United States are grounded in the tradition of public service. They are organized as public trusts, holding their collections and information as a benefit for those they were established to serve. Members of their governing authority, employees and volunteers are committed to the interests of these beneficiaries. [...]
Loyalty to the mission of the museum and to the public it serves is the essence of museum work, whether volunteer or paid. Where conflicts of interest arise—actual, potential or perceived—the duty of loyalty must never be compromised. No individual may use his or her position in a museum for personal gain or to benefit another at the expense of the museum, its mission, its reputation and the society it serves" [emphasis mine].There would appear to be a conflict of interest and even if it was just a perceived conflict of interest, as a member of the AAM, it would be in the Smithsonian's best interest as well as ethical obligation to take the issue seriously.
