Scientific heritage: Reflections on its nature and new approaches to preservation, study and access

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

Author's personal copy

Scientific heritage: Reflections on its nature and new approachesto preservation, study and access

Marta C. Lourenço a, Lydia Wilson b

a National Museum of Natural History and Science/CIUHCT, University of Lisbon, Rua da Escola Politécnica, 56, 1250-102 Lisboa, Portugalb Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Mellon Committee for the Study of Religion, Graduate Center, City University New York,365, 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords:Scientific heritageRecent scientific heritageUniversity heritagePreservation policies

a b s t r a c t

Scientific heritage can be found in every teaching and research institution, large or small, from universi-ties to museums, from hospitals to secondary schools, from scientific societies to research laboratories. Itis generally dispersed and vulnerable. Typically, these institutions lack the awareness, internalprocedures, policies, or qualified staff to provide for its selection, preservation, and accessibility. More-over, legislation that protects cultural heritage does not generally apply to the heritage of science. In thispaper we analyse the main problems that make scientific heritage preservation so difficult to address. Wediscuss the concept and present existing preservation tools, including recent surveys, legislation, policies,and innovative institutional approaches. We briefly analyse two recent initiatives for the preservation ofscientific heritage, at the Universities of Lisbon and Cambridge.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

When citing this paper, please use the full journal title Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

1. Introduction

In the early 1990s, the Director of the Museum of Science of theUniversity of Lisbon received a phone call from a local secondaryschool. A physics teacher was asking for the Museum’s help inthe conservation of a sixteenth-century Flemish quadrant, amongother rare scientific instruments that apparently were in one ofthe school’s labs. Although the Museum often receives similarrequests, this one was initially met with scepticism. Sixteenth-century instruments are not part of the typical equipment of a sec-ondary school lab. It was certainly a fake or a teaching replica madeby a former teacher or a student. Or could it be a prank? The callcould not pass unnoticed, however, and a couple of days later,the Museum director visited the school and met with the teacher.He could not believe what he saw in the lab: among the usualteaching paraphernalia—voltmeters, barometers, induction coilsand suchlike—were some of the most beautiful scientific instru-ments he had ever seen, and certainly among the earliest in

Portugal. They were not fakes. The quadrant was indeed from1573, signed by Ieremias Arscenius, Leuven. Still today, it is theonly known instrument in the world signed by this obscure Flem-ish maker. There was also a ‘‘circles of proportion’’ from the 1630sby Elias Allen and an eighteenth century Butterfield equatorial sec-tor, among other objects.

Today, these instruments are on permanent loan at the Mu-seum. They have been cleaned and studied and they are accessibleboth to the general public and to researchers.1 Such discoveries donot happen every day in the life of a museum, but the story is a strik-ing reminder of the challenges we face when we consider the pres-ervation of scientific heritage. It reminds us that a considerablenumber of artefacts of scientific and historical significance exist out-side the radar of museums. It shows us that artefacts and collectionscan be in unexpected places. They are vulnerable, subject to arbitrarygoodwill, and therefore running the risk of being irreversibly dam-aged or lost. Regardless of their importance, they can disappearwithout anyone knowing about it. The majority of these artefacts

0039-3681/$ - see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2013.07.011

E-mail address: [email protected] (M.C. Lourenço)1 It is now known that the scientific instruments were donated to the school in the late 1950s by the National Palace of Ajuda when this became a museum. The Palace had been

a former residence of the Portuguese royal family in Lisbon. Presumably the instruments were donated to the school with a view to their continued use. For more on this seeLourenço (2012), Lourenço & Felismino (2013).

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 (2013) 744–753

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate /shpsa


are in institutions that do not have clear selection or preservationpolicies or strategies, let alone staff qualified to care for them.

Recent heritage of science, here considered as scientific materialproduced after WWII, poses preservation challenges of its own. Thecontinuous production, the overwhelming size, and the complexityof artefacts generated in the past six decades require a reinventionof the traditional preservation mechanisms, including new policies,new selection criteria, innovative approaches to data storage, andunfamiliar roles for museums. However, as we have illustratedwith the example of the lost instruments at the Lisbon secondaryschool, recent heritage of science is only part of a larger picture. Be-fore we get into the specific problems of recent scientific heritage,we need a clearer understanding of the issues surrounding thestudy, preservation, and access of scientific heritage as a whole.In this paper, we will identify and analyse some of the issues thatmake scientific heritage so difficult to preserve, beginning with itsdefinition and scope. At the same time, given that interest in scien-tific heritage has been growing over the past decades, we will alsoreflect on existing preservation tools, including legislation andsurveys, recent literature, and relevant initiatives, particularly inEurope. This interest comes from many sectors: from individuals,particularly historians, to research and teaching institutions andmuseums, from non-governmental associations and networks togovernments and international organisations. We will also brieflyanalyse two recent preservation programmes at the University ofLisbon and Cambridge. Except where specifically indicated, thistext does not address the heritage of technology or industrial her-itage. Industrial heritage, in particular, is framed by internationalcharters2 and is well represented in local museums and ecomuse-ums across Europe. This is not the case with the heritage of science.

2. Scientific heritage: definition and scope

The expression ‘‘scientific heritage’’ or ‘‘heritage of science’’ isoften used in the literature on the assumption that it will be clearlyand unequivocally understood. However, scientific heritage is di-verse, complex, multi-layered, and more difficult to define thanindustrial heritage or natural heritage. A definition is importantper se and also to clarify the position of scientific heritage in thedisciplinary landscape, particularly in regard to its mutual relationswith Heritage Studies, Museum Studies, and the History of Science,Technology and Medicine. The project NPEESH: New Perspectives inthe Enhancement of Scientific Heritage,3 has recognized this need:‘‘The immediate objective is to develop a broadly agreed definitionof scientific heritage around which the various experts can uniteand enhance the field as a whole. This will help end the long stand-ing fragmentation of both the field itself as an academic discipline,and the way scientific heritage is displayed to the public in a com-partmentalized form.’’4

However, scientific heritage is difficult to define. Linguisticallyit lies at the intersection of two distinct and complex worlds—theworld of science and the world of (cultural) heritage. Both worldsare dynamic and constantly evolving, but their values, traditions,and practices are considerably different and often contradictoryin nature.

Two immediate ambiguities resulting from this intersection canbe identified, both making ‘‘scientific heritage’’ problematic to de-fine. The first derives from the weight of ‘‘history’’ and ‘‘memory’’in the word ‘‘heritage.’’ We usually think of heritage as static, beau-tiful artefacts and monuments of historical value and we tend totransfer that to a scientific context. However, it does not apply.The heritage of science mirrors the diversity of science itself. It in-cludes human-made buildings and landscapes of historical signifi-cance, such as astronomical and geophysical observatories,meteorological stations, laboratories, and botanical gardens. Butit also includes herbaria, fossils, bones, eggs, pollens, wax andteaching models, minerals, rocks, meteorites, scientific instru-ments of all types, soil samples, animals, plants and seed, tissueand DNA banks, among many others. Scientific heritage is multi-layered and it includes scientific heritage of historical value.

The second ambiguity arises from the sheer scope of the ‘‘scien-tific’’ in scientific heritage, which mirrors the complexity of the sci-entific disciplines. Typically, scientific heritage is meant toencompass the broad universe of artificialia, i.e. human-made arte-facts and buildings, along with specimens, samples, and standards.However, it does not normally include the heritage of technology,which is considered ‘‘an heritage’’ in its own right (as industrialheritage). Sometimes engineering is included, sometimes not. Thenormal use of scientific heritage also excludes the heritage of thehumanities and social sciences. Generally, it does not include ar-chives or libraries either.5 ‘‘Heritage of research,’’ regardless of thedisciplines, would be much clearer than ‘‘heritage of science.’’

2.1. But what does scientific heritage mean?

The world of cultural heritage is dense, intricate, and politicalor, at least, policy-oriented. It is rich with norms and regulations,criteria, methods, and policies. The majority of cultural heritagereference literature is not academic; it comes from UNESCO, theCouncil of Europe, the OECD and other cultural and political insti-tutions, including national governments.6 It comes in the form ofreports, policy documents, international treaties and lists, recom-mendations, white papers, and legislation. Although in many coun-tries Heritage Studies (Études du Patrimoine) has been recognisedas an autonomous academic field in itself, its object of study, theo-retical background, and methodology are often difficult to pinpoint.Like Museum Studies, it is a recent interdisciplinary field drawingfrom a multitude of other fields from History to Archaeology,Anthropology, Architecture, Conservation Science, and so on.

There are probably as many definitions of cultural heritage asthere are definitions of culture. They all have in common an ideaof shared collective legacy. In other words, cultural heritage iseverything that defines us collectively as a community, as a coun-try, or as a species; it is everything we want to keep, share withothers, and pass on to the next generation. UNESCO defines cul-tural heritage as the ‘‘entire corpus of material signs—either artisticor symbolic—handed on by the past to each culture and, therefore,to the whole of mankind.’’7 This is consistent with definitionsadopted by individual countries.8 Moreover, the concept has chan-ged significantly during the second half of the twentieth century

2 See the Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage (2003), for example.3 Funded by the European Science Foundation (2003–2005).4 From the project’s description and objectives (ESF archives).5 See de Chaderevian in this volume.6 See, for example, the compilation of cultural heritage documents provided by the Getty, accessible at http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/

research_resources/charters.html (Accessed 19 September 2012).7 See UNESCO Draft Medium Term Plan 1990–1995, p. 57, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0008/000825/082539eb.pdf. See also http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-

URL_ID=2185&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html (Both accessed 19 September 2012).8 For example, Sweden defines cultural heritage as ‘‘the tangible and intangible expressions which includes traditions, languages, artistic works, historic relics, collections of

archives and artefacts, as well as cultural environments and cultural landscapes that have been handed down from generation to generation,’’ Swedish National Heritage Board,Strategy and Vision 2011-2013, http://www.raa.se/publicerat/br2011_2.pdf, p. 7 (Accessed 19 September 2012).

M.C. Lourenço, L. Wilson / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 (2013) 744–753 745


as cultural heritage expresses societies’ changing values. Accordingto Poulot (1998), three main changes have influenced our perceptionof cultural heritage: first, a shift from elitist ‘‘high culture’’ objects todaily objects; second, a shift from national to Western and thenworldwide; third, a shift from the strict materiality of objects andbuildings to their non-material significances. More recently, theseshifts were accompanied by the emergence of ‘‘new heritages’’ (e.g.natural, industrial, technological, aeronautical). Scientific heritagecan be considered one of these ‘‘new heritages.’’

There are specific problems in terminology and definitionswhen considering the recent heritage of science: the two ambigu-ities noted above in relation to ‘‘heritage’’ and ‘‘science’’ haveadded nuances and associated problems. The problems with ‘‘her-itage’’ arise when the practices of the scientific research in whichthe material is being produced are ongoing. The border betweenscientific practice and history of science is not as sharp as mightbe supposed: many instruments, obsolete in one research settingmay be adapted or cannibalised for another research project andthus achieve renewed scientific life long after their initial use. Ob-jects may be transferred into teaching labs, and thus out of theirinitial context but not into heritage roles. There are some examplesof material being drawn back into a research context long afterbeing retired; one such example is herbaria, which fell into relativedisuse with the change of plant sciences to a more laboratory-fo-cused discipline, but which are now finding new roles in biodiver-sity and nature conservation studies.

There are also problems in the recognition of heritage in veryrecent scientific activity by their ‘‘users’’ or, more precisely, their‘‘generators.’’ What might be recognised as important by museumprofessionals or historians may be viewed as mere rubbish, or toocommon or everyday to be valued as potential heritage, by scien-tists and technicians. Often there are similar problems stemmingfrom the appearance of objects and the disconnect with commonperceptions of museum items, which includes more evidently ico-nic items, especially ones showing a high level of craftsmanship(often involving brass and wood). Thus everyday, mass-producedinstruments are often not seen as worth mentioning to a museum,unlike a unique instrument which enabled Nobel Prize-winning re-search, though the history of scientific practices requires as much,if not more, attention to the everyday than the unique.

Moreover, the meaning and scope of ‘‘science’’ and scientificpractice in the latter part of the twentieth century has been quicklychanging. The constant emergence of new sub-disciplines, and thefloating nature of some between parent disciplines (examples in-clude areas of research such as electron microscopy which couldbe in Materials Science or Physics departments, or research in re-cent geological time which could be in Geology, Geography, orArchaeology departments) makes materials more vulnerable andtheir biographies harder to trace. The increasingly amorphousboundaries between the social sciences and the more traditionalnatural sciences result in similar problems of risk and loss of his-torical context, as does interdisciplinarity and increasing inter-institutional and international collaborations.

A broadly agreed definition of scientific heritage that can uniteand enhance the field needs to transcend mere disciplines, includ-ing history sensu stricto. Scientific heritage is the shared collectivelegacy of the scientific community, in other words what the scien-tific community as a whole perceives as representing its identity,worth being passed on to the next generation of scientists and tothe general public as well. It includes what we know about life, nat-ure, and the universe, but also how we know it. Its media are bothmaterial and immaterial. It encompasses artefacts and specimens,

but also laboratories, observatories, landscapes, gardens, collec-tions, savoir faires, research and teaching practices and ethics, doc-uments, and books. It is in this broad and integrated perspectivethat we consider ‘‘scientific heritage’’ in this paper.

3. Tools for the preservation and use of scientific heritage

Apart from its definition, the preservation of scientific heritageposes broad-spectrum challenges, from institutional issues whereit is generated, to issues related to its research and study, conser-vation, and dissemination. In this section, we compile and discusssome of these issues, as well as existing tools to promote scientificheritage preservation and use.

It goes without saying that we will be mostly concerned withscientific heritage that is outside museums. We take for grantedthat scientific heritage preserved in museums is not vulnerable.Moreover, as we will explain, already-existing museums are animportant variable in the equation but they cannot answer, bythemselves, questions arising from the current complexity, size,diversity, and dispersion of scientific heritage, particularly recentheritage of science.

3.1. Surveys and national programmes: Some examples

Scientific heritage cannot be preserved, let alone used, if we donot know what exists and where. Surveys are essential tools for fu-ture preservation planning, policies, management and research.Their aim is to identify relevant clusters that are dispersed andcharacterise them according to a variety of parameters (e.g. num-ber of objects, institutional status, location, conservation and secu-rity state, relevance, and use). A clear definition of concepts (e.g.heritage, collection) and a consistent methodology are essentialto compile reliable data and in order to share data and ideas usingcommon terminologies. Scientific heritage is a poor conceptualsurvey unit—it needs to be broken down into smaller units suchas collections, buildings, and objects.

The university sector has known considerable developments insuch surveying recently, largely due to the engagement of severalnon-governmental organisations created since the 1970s and1980s, which was considered a ‘‘crisis’’ period when many univer-sity collections were at risk (e.g. Warhurst, 1986; Willet, 1986). Thefirst surveys were done in the Netherlands, UK, and Australia. Inthe 2000s many countries followed and today we have a betterunderstanding of the scientific heritage of universities, particularlyin Europe (Soubiran, Lourenço, Wittje, Talas, & Bremer, 2009). Mostof the surveys are published, and in some cases data have beenmade available through online databases. We mention here onlysome of the most important surveys at national level, given thatsurveys at university level are too numerous.9

The Netherlands completed two surveys of its university heri-tage in the 1980s and 1990s (LOCUC, 1985, Adviesgroup Rijksdi-ents Beeldende Kunst, 1996), followed by a thorough and oftencontroversial reorganisation of its university museums and collec-tions at national level (Clercq, 2003). Today, Dutch university col-lections are online at object level (Reerink, 2012).10 The StichtingAcademisch Erfgoed (Academic Heritage Foundation) was created tomaintain and update data and also to promote collaborative projectsamong Dutch universities.

In the UK, comprehensive surveys of university collections perregion were conducted between 1989 and 2002 (Bass, 1984a,1984b, Arnold-Forster, 1989, 1993, 1999; Drysdale, 1990; Arnold-Forster & La Rue, 1993; Arnold-Forster & Weeks, 1999, 2000,

9 E.g. University of Trondheim (Wittje & Nordal, 2005), University of Uppsala (Josefsson & Worley, 2010; Worley & Josefsson, 2010), University of Lisbon (Pascoal, Teixeira, &Lourenço, 2012), among others.

10 See http://www.academischecollecties.nl/ (Accessed 28 November 2012).

746 M.C. Lourenço, L. Wilson / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 (2013) 744–753


2001; Council of Museums in Wales, 2002; Northern Ireland Muse-ums Council, 2002; UMG, 2004). Australia also conducted system-atic surveys in the 1990s (University Museums Project Committee,1998; University Museums Review Committee, 1996).

One result of the ‘‘observatory for heritage and scientific andtechnical culture’’ [Observatoire du Patrimoine et de la Culture Scien-tifiques et Techniques] in France was the creation of the online col-laborative platform Plateforme OCIM Universités,11 which aims atassembling data from French university collections. France also hastwo ongoing national programmes for the preservation of its scien-tific heritage, both including surveys: one for the recent heritage ofscience, coordinated by the Musée des Arts et Métiers, Paris (Ballé,Cuenca & Thoulouze, 2010)12 and another for the scientific heritageof French secondary schools, coordinated by the Association de Sauve-garde et d’Étude des Instruments Scientifiques et Techniques de l’Ens-eignement.13 France has a tradition in scientific heritage cataloguesand surveys. There have been regional surveys of herbaria (e.g. Dur-and, 2011; Faure, 2011), and the survey of astronomical heritageconducted in the 1990s (Tully & Davoigneau, 2002), as well as theterminological and conceptual tools it developed, remain a referencetoday.14

Another country where important reference tools are beingdeveloped along with surveys of scientific heritage is Brazil. A na-tional survey of scientific heritage is ongoing under the coordina-tion of the Museum of Astronomy in Rio de Janeiro. It includesonly the heritage of the so called ‘‘exact sciences’’ but its institu-tional scope goes well beyond universities (Granato, 2010).15 TheBrazilian survey uses methodology developed at the University ofLisbon, as well as terminological and conceptual tools for the Portu-guese language developed in cooperation with Portugal.16 Brazil isalso strong in surveys and standards of scientific buildings of histor-ical significance, particularly in the medical sciences. Fiocruz, a na-tional research institution based in Rio de Janeiro, has beendeveloping surveys of Brazilian historical hospitals and medicalfacilities per region (e.g. Mott & Sanglard, 2012; Pôrto, Sanglard, daFonseca, & Costa, 2008). Fiocruz has also developed standards forthe conservation and restoration of nineteenth and twentieth cen-tury buildings relevant to the history of medicine and health care(Pinheiro, Lourenço, Duarte, Franqueira, & Lopes, 2009); it wouldbe invaluable if these were to be made more accessible to the scien-tific community, given the lack of literature in this area.

Catalonia’s Commission for Scientific Instruments (COMIC), cre-ated in 2004 as a committee of the Catalan Society for the Historyof Science and Technology, has been systematically assemblingdata on collections of historical scientific instruments.17 The sur-vey’s scope encompasses secondary schools, universities, museums,and other scientific institutions in Catalonia, Valencia, and the Bale-aric Islands. Apart from scientific heritage preservation objectives,the COMIC catalogue also aims at encouraging the use of scientificinstruments and, more generally, the material culture of science asa source for history of science teaching and research (Simon, Bertom-eu Sánchez, & Belmar, 2009; Sánchez, Belmar, Lorente, & Castel,2010).

There have also been recent developments in Italy, where sur-veys, as in the Netherlands, also have a clear heritage managementpurpose. Initially encouraged by the Italian Conference of Rectors[Conferenza dei Rettori delle Università Italiane], the survey aimedat providing Italian universities with a consistent and uniformmanagement tool for their museums and collections. The ‘‘mu-seum system’’ [sistema museale d’ateneo], comprising one networkof museums and collections per university, aims at informationsharing, increasing access, and preservation (Pugnaloni, 2003). Re-cently, an online platform has also been developed for Italian uni-versity heritage (Corradini, 2011).18

Perhaps the country where the impact of surveys had the mostconcrete and encouraging results at national level was Germany.The survey of university collections, initiated in 2001 by the Helm-holtz Zentrum für Kulturtechnik of the Humboldt University of Ber-lin, was the first step to increased awareness towards scientificcollections of German universities. The survey was later expandedto a worldwide database through UMAC, the ICOM internationalcommittee for university museums and collections.19 In January2011, the federal governmental research agency, the German Councilfor the Sciences and Humanities [Wissenschaftsrat], published Scien-tific Collections as Research Infrastructures, where it noted: ‘‘scientificcollections should be seen as essential research infrastructureswhose preservation, upkeep and usability for research is not a dis-pensable ancillary service but a core task for the institutions whichsupport them.’’20 The document also recommended a coordinationbody at national level, with dedicated public funding. The coordina-tion body was created in 2012 with five aims: a) the establishmentof collaborative and strategic projects; b) the creation of communi-cation structures; c) the creation of standards and minimum require-ments for collections, as well as an evaluation system; d) providingadvice; and e) increase visibility of scientific collections through aweb-portal (German Council for the Sciences and Humanities,2001, p. 45). As Weber (2012) recognises, it would not have beenpossible to position scientific collections in the German politicaland scientific agenda without reliable data. The survey done in theearly 2000s was at the core of these encouraging developments. To-day, Germany is probably the only country in Europe to have a na-tional strategic plan for its scientific collections.

Germany was also at the core of the only worldwide databasefor university collections (Weber & Lourenço, 2005). Developedin the early 2000s under the auspices of UMAC, the InternationalCommittee of ICOM for University Museums and Collections, thedatabase provides an important source for scientific heritage atthe international level.21

3.2. Legislation, classification and recommendations

Legislation is an important preservation tool. Laws specificallyaddressing scientific heritage are hard to find. However, lack of leg-islation is to some extent a false problem. Not every country is likeBrazil, which contemplates building the preservation of scientificheritage into its national constitution, but every country has legal

11 Created under OCIM, the French Office for Museum Cooperation and Information [Office de Coopération et Information Muséales], see http://inventaire.ocim.fr/AccueiL(Accessed 28 November 2012).

12 Based on a regional programme developed in the 1990s at the Pays de la Loire. See Cuenca-Boulat (1997), Cuenca, Thomas, & Ballé (2005).13 See http://www.aseiste.org/ (Accessed 28 November 2012).14 Particularly the thesaurus of scientific instruments in Portuguese, see http://www.museus.ul.pt/thesaurus-online (Accessed 1 December 2012).15 See also Granato in this volume.16 See footnote 14.17 See http://www.instrumentscientifics.com (Accessed 28 November 2012).18 See http://www.pomui.unimore.it (Accessed 1 December 2012).19 See http://publicus.culture.hu-berlin.de/collections/ (Accessed 1 December 2012).20 Scientific Collections as Research Infrastructure, German Council for the Sciences and Humanities, http://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/archiv/10464-11-11_engl.pdf, p.

45 (Accessed 1 December 2012).21 See http://publicus.culture.hu-berlin.de/collections/ (Accessed 1 October 2012).



mechanisms to protect cultural heritage and thus the heritage ofscience. The trouble with scientific heritage and legislation is thatthe typical legal mechanism includes preservation through muse-ums or through statutory listing of monuments (the latter mainlyfor buildings and archaeological sites). Anything outside this—themajority of research and teaching collections in university depart-ments, secondary schools, and academic hospitals, including thoseof historical significance—has no protection without in-depth jus-tification. Moreover, common legal preservation mechanisms arelittle known among the scientific community and therefore of littlepractical use. In the case of legal protection, it is the cultural heri-tage sector that needs to reach out for scientific heritage.

Some countries have already developed legislation to respondto the specificities of ‘‘new heritages,’’ including scientific heritage.As mentioned before, the most important of these specificities arerespect for geographical dispersion and for future uses for researchand teaching (the research and teaching infrastructure). For exam-ple, the 2004 update of the Portuguese museum law introduced thepossibility of protecting collections outside museums on an equalbasis with museums themselves, including for accreditation pur-poses.22 They are designated ‘‘open collections’’ [colecções visitáveis].Brazil and Spain have similar laws, although Brazilian and Spanishcollections are not eligible for such accreditation schemes.23

The accreditation of ‘‘open collections’’ outside museums is con-troversial for two reasons. First, it is uncharted territory as far asstandards and professional ethics are concerned. We are familiarwith the requirements of a collection inside a museum—catalogu-ing, conservation, public access, professional curatorship, and secu-rity, among others—but how do these requirements translate into anon-museum environment, for example a university department?Who is responsible for guaranteeing them? Who selects the ob-jects? Based on which criteria? Who can be granted access? Thesequestions remain unanswered and require further research. Sec-ond, there is a risk that ‘‘open collections’’ are considered to beat some vague pre-museum status (e.g. ‘‘now we cannot affordto, but our aim is to have a museum in the future’’) or to be secondrate museums, instead of entities in their own right. As more ‘‘opencollections’’ are accredited and made eligible to culture funds, thisproblem is likely to be minimised. Clearly, provided appropriatestandards and requirements are developed, ‘‘open collections’’ of-fer a stimulating opportunity for the preservation of scientific her-itage without the unsustainable proliferation of micro-museums.Besides, ‘‘open collections’’ have always existed in universitydepartments—a herbarium is the first example that comes to mind.Moreover, the concept responds to in situ preservation of post-Warheritages of science both in the life and medical sciences (e.g. DNA,tissue, tumour banks) and in the physical sciences (e.g. large andcomplex facilities) because it respects past, present, and futureuses.

In terms of international legislation, several treaties and con-ventions include the preservation of scientific heritage. These trea-ties may become part of national legislation once individualcountries have ratified them. The first important international

cultural heritage document is the Charter of Athens (1933), aimedat the preservation of architecture in historical centres of townsand cities. The latest is the ICOMOS Charter on Cultural Routes(2008), aimed at establishing guidelines for dynamic macrostruc-tures of cultural heritage. In between, there are 80 years and morethan 100 conventions, charters, declarations, and recommenda-tions. Perhaps 80–90% of these documents address monuments,buildings, archaeological sites, and historical centres. Many havemultiple references to science, scientific artefacts, scientists, andeven the history of science.

For example, one of the most important UNESCO conventions inthis area, the ‘‘Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Pre-venting the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cul-tural Property’’ (1970), accepted and ratified by 123 countries,explicitly states that: ‘‘( . . . ) For the purposes of this Convention,the term ‘cultural property’ means property which, on religiousor secular grounds, is specifically designated by each State as beingof importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art orscience and which belongs to the following categories: (a) rare col-lections and specimens of fauna, flora, minerals and anatomy, andobjects of paleontological interest; (b) property relating to history,including the history of science and technology and military andsocial history, to the life of national leaders, thinkers, scientistsand artists and to events of national importance ( . . . ).’’24 Anotherimportant convention with direct impact on natural heritage andbiological and geological collections is the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (2000). Another one is the UNESCO Intangible HeritageConvention (2003). Discussing this convention in the light of scien-tific heritage, Van-Präet (2004, p. 113) has argued that scientific her-itage is essentially immaterial, encompassing a set of distinct‘‘scientific and technical discoveries [ . . . ] forgotten and ‘reinvented.’’’

In short, preservation legislation does exist but the cases whereit is applied are rare, most likely due to a mixture of lack of aware-ness and fear of complex bureaucracy. A particularly illustrativeexample is the limited number of science-related items classifiedby UNESCO as World Heritage: in a list of almost 1,000, only threequalify as scientific heritage as defined in this article. In 1997, theBotanical Garden at the University of Padua, Italy, was classified asWorld Heritage. The UNESCO Committee explains the decision ‘‘toinscribe this property [ . . . ] considering that the Botanical Gardenof Padua is the original of all botanical gardens throughout theworld, and represents the birth of science, of scientific exchanges,and understanding of the relationship between nature and culture.It has made a profound contribution to the development of manymodern scientific disciplines, notably botany, medicine, chemistry,ecology, and pharmacy.’’25 In 2003, the Royal Botanical Gardens inKew were also classified as a world heritage site.26 Finally, in2005, UNESCO classified the Struve Geodetic Arc as WorldHeritage.27

More interesting, however, is the attention UNESCO has turnedrecently to the heritage of astronomy, particularly astronomicaland archeoastronomical sites. The initiative began in 2004 and itincluded a Declaration for the Protection of Astronomical Heritage,

22 Portuguese Museum Law No. 47 (August 2004).23 The Brazilian Museum Law is No. 11.904 (January 2009). Spanish museum legislation rests with the regions due to its complex political system, but ‘‘open collections’’—in

Spanish colecciones museográficas—are contemplated in the Navarra museums law, and the Andalucia museums law, among others. The UK ‘‘Designated Collection Scheme’’applies to particular collections in museums or to museums’ entire collections, not to collections outside museums.

24 See the full text at the Getty Conservation Institute, Cultural Heritage Policy Documents, http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/research_resources/charters.html#2000 (Accessed 1 December 2012).

25 See UNESCO World Heritage List at http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&id_site=824 (Accessed 1 December 2012). The Struve geodetic arc stretches across 10 countriesfrom Norway to the Black Sea. It constituted the first accurate measurement of a long segment of a meridian. The survey was carried out between 1816 and 1855 by theastronomer Friedrich Georg Wilhelm von Struve (1793–1864). Struve supervised the survey from the Astronomical Observatory of the University of Tartu, where he worked from1813 to 1839.

26 See UNESCO World Heritage List at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1084 (Accessed 1 December 2012).27 See UNESCO World Heritage List at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1187 (Accessed 1 December 2012).



signed in Paris (2011), and the launch of a portal of astronomicalheritage in August 2012.28

Finally, two international documents are worth mentioning,although neither has the force of law and both are geographicallyconfined to Europe: the Halle Declaration (2000), by UNIVERSEUM,the European Academic Heritage Network,29 and RecommendationRec (2005) 13 on the Governance and Management of UniversityHeritage, by the Council of Europe.30 Both address the importanceof university heritage in Europe and the latter was unanimously ap-proved by the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

3.3. Institutional tools: Stimulating new approaches

Let us imagine a university department somewhere. In any gi-ven moment, a huge amount of data from diverse fields of knowl-edge and in multiple forms is being generated, validated, andexchanged. This is what universities have been doing for centuries.In the past, say until 60 years ago, these data came in the form ofinstruments and laboratory equipment, paper and documents (ex-ams, essays, theses, field notebooks), books, samples, artefacts,specimens, collections, and oral exchanges between students, pro-fessors, researchers, and technicians. Today the process is basicallythe same except that i) it is much faster; ii) the amount of data ismuch larger; and iii) almost all paper and books have been re-placed by digital formats. Both the process and its change in recentdecades have implications for the preservation of scientific heri-tage. We will first briefly address the process and then focus onthe last 60 years.

Every institution that develops research, innovation, and teach-ing produces objects. Instruments, artefacts, tools, samples, speci-mens, are used on a daily basis in university departments,schools, academic hospitals, and laboratories. As mentioned ear-lier, object production, transit, and disposal is embedded in theethos of these institutions. Many of these objects are potentiallyworth preserving due to their local, national, or international sig-nificance. However, for a variety of reasons, research and teachinginstitutions have ambivalent views about the preservation of sci-entific heritage.

On the one hand, although research and teaching institutionsmay have museums, they are not museums. Ultimately, they haveno vocation, drive, dedicated budget, or qualified staff to preservescientific heritage. They lack the internal mechanisms that enablethe preservation and documentation of objects (policies, selectioncriteria, procedures). On the contrary, all existing mechanismsdetermine that, when obsolete, objects are to be replaced, adapted,cannibalised, or lie dormant in attics and basements, often for dec-ades, and are finally to be disposed of (Brenni, 2012; Lourenço &Gessner, 2012). Moreover, in many respects, heritage preservationis felt to collide with the dynamic, innovative, and avant garde im-age these institutions aim to project in contemporary society. Inother words, everything in the natural organisation and modus ope-randi of these institutions militates against the preservation ofartefacts and collections.

On the other hand, research and teaching institutions have al-ways preserved artefacts and collections. Universities in particularwere among the first institutions to organise collections and createmuseums (Lewis, 1984; Boylan, 1999; Lourenço, 2004). Institu-tions preserve objects and collections when one of three conditionsare met: a) when collections and artefacts are integral to the teach-ing and research infrastructure; b) when collections and artefactsare perceived to provide an opportunity for science outreach;31

and c) when collections and artefacts can contribute to PR, projectingan image of ‘‘culture’’ and ‘‘tradition.’’ In recent decades, the combi-nation of the three has resulted in multiple preservation initiativesof variable duration and relevance in institutions across Europe.Moreover, even without proper institutional preservation policiesor procedures, individual awareness of scientists and techniciansto scientific heritage is considerable and objects are often set asidefor ‘‘emotional’’ reasons (Wilson, 2012). Many museums created inthe twentieth century result directly from individual selection andpreservation, particularly in universities (Lourenço, 2005). Althoughseemingly arbitrary and amateur, such a preservation mechanism isa critical point of departure for a more meaningful and long-terminstitutional preservation and it should be encouraged. Further re-search into motives and practices is also needed.

In short, research and teaching institutions are usually aware ofthe importance of their collections and artefacts and of preserva-tion benefits, both at institutional and individual levels. More oftenthan not, they have basic material and logistic resources (storageand display spaces and equipment, workshops, security). Althoughuntrained, they have highly motivated staff and also, in the case ofuniversities, students from different areas who can be involved inscientific heritage preservation, study and access. What they lack isa broader scientific heritage preservation framework that bringsstandards to professional levels and provides consistency, mean-ing, and stability to practices.

3.3.1. The Lisbon scientific heritage programmeIn 2007, the Museums of the University of Lisbon initiated a

long-term programme aimed at supporting institutions with scien-tific heritage. The programme builds on what each institution hasand provides them with what they lack. It began in a casual andinformal way—a secondary school asked the Museum for help incataloguing scientific instruments and natural history collec-tions—and it now encompasses c. 20 institutions in Lisbon, fromsecondary schools to hospitals, museums, universities, and poly-technics.32 It is too early to evaluate results, but the programmehas been run successfully despite its limited resources.33 The institu-tions’ commitment at the highest level is considered more impor-tant—a sine qua non for institutions to join the programme—thanmaterial and financial resources. Although each institution has dif-ferent initial conditions, the aim is always the same: long-termin situ preservation and sustainable access and use of scientific her-itage (at least for the scientific community), both according to inter-national standards. The fewer the resources available, the longer ittakes.

28 See http://www2.astronomicalheritage.net/ (Accessed 1 December 2012).29 See http://universeum.it/declaration.html (Accessed 1 December 2012).30 See the full text at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=946661 (Accessed 1 December 2012).31 There is extensive literature on the outreach dimension of universities, with and without collections. A good place to start is UMACJ, the journal that regularly publishes the

proceedings of UMAC meetings, see UMAC publications, http://publicus.culture.hu-berlin.de/umac/publications (Accessed 1 September 2012). The movement is especiallyimportant in France, where most universities have a dedicated mission culture scientifique. To learn more about the outreach dimension and the engagement of scientists withscientific heritage in France, see e.g. Boudia (2003), Maison (2002). See also the recent Pour l’intégration des musées et collections dans la politique scientifique et culturelle desuniversités, see UMAC Resources, http://publicus.culture.hu-berlin.de/umac/otherdocuments (Accessed 1 January 2013).

32 The Lisbon Academy of Sciences; Passos Manuel, Camões, Oeiras and Santarém Secondary Schools; the National Train Museum; the Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Institute;Saint Joseph, Saint Marta Hospitals; the Doroteias College; the National Agronomy Station; the Military College, among others.

33 The programme has no dedicated funding. It depends exclusively on the Museum human resources and whatever resources the institutions have to offer, which variessignificantly.



Typically, the programme comprises four stages. Stage I in-volves a series of visits to the institution to evaluate the collectionsand associated documentation, identify available and engaged hu-man resources (staff, teachers, scientists, technicians, students),identify potential storage and display areas, and identify potentialuses (research, teaching, outreach). Visits also provide informationabout museums, proto-museums, and other heritage preservationstructures that exist in the institution (archives, libraries). Nor-mally, a considerable amount of information is compiled (e.g.building plans, literature, photos, old catalogues, and inventories).Most importantly, these visits aim at raising awareness of theimportance of scientific heritage, convincing institutions that theycan do better with the resources they already have, and consolidat-ing a partnership based on mutual trust.34

Perhaps the most difficult part of Stage I is the evaluation of thecollections. The need to develop consistent evaluation criteria hasbeen identified before (e.g. Clercq, 2003; German Council for theSciences and Humanities, 2011) and it requires further research.Criteria should include both material conditions (e.g. conservation,security, access) and value and significance. The latter is more dif-ficult because it is directly related to the collections’ associateddocumentation (Lourenço & Gessner, 2012) and it involves highlyspecialised expertise and connoisseurship. For the former, we havedeveloped in Lisbon a practical classification tool (Table 1).35

Although it needs to be further explored and developed (e.g. catego-ries can be further divided), the tool covers most cases and it hasbeen important in planning, as well as in the comparison betweencollections of different institutions under the programme.

Stage II of the programme involves basic training of the institu-tion’s available staff in scientific heritage cataloguing and docu-mentation (archives, oral history, object photography, data anddatabases), conservation and security issues (minimum storagerequirements, environmental conditions, access control, insur-ance), legal issues (property, international treaties regardingendangered species, relevant legislation and guidelines regardinghuman remains, live specimens and typical hazards in scientificenvironments, such as chemical, radioactive, bacteriological,explosive materials, among others), and restoration and displayethics. These training sessions are of variable duration and usuallytake place in our Museum. They include visits to the Museum stor-age, exhibitions and the handling of historical artefacts and naturalhistory collections. Extensive reference materials have been pre-pared and are delivered to the trainees.

After the evaluation done in Stage I and the guidelines and stan-dards provided in Stage II, Stage III encompasses designing a spe-cific Strategic Plan for the Preservation of Scientific Heritage forthe institution, in close articulation with its needs, aims, and re-sources. It includes the design and provision of long-term policies,selection criteria, and internal procedures. Because it may takeyears to implement, it typically includes step-by-step actions andit needs to be validated by the institution’s top administration.Although often ambitious when considering the point of departure,most plans are feasible as they aim at minimal standards andrequirements—in other words that all collections should becomeType IV Collections and be increasingly used by the institution intheir core activities (research, teaching). Some institutions wantto do more than this—for example create science or history

museums—and although we may provide advice, that aim is be-yond the scope of the programme.

The last Stage—Stage IV—is the implementation of the StrategicPlan, which the Museum monitors closely, through further stafftraining, the provision of volunteers and students for particulartasks (inventory, collections relocation, artefact cleaning and label-ling, etc.),36 and stimulating increased use for teaching, research,and outreach. More often than not, funding mechanisms are foundat this stage, either within the institutions or through other channels(e.g. EU funding, as partnerships with the Museum increases the pos-sibilities for institutions to apply successfully for cultural heritagefunds). At this stage, we also provide exhibition space at the Mu-seum and we develop temporary displays and public programmesto increase public visibility of their scientific heritage.

Although not particularly innovative (remote support modelshave been tested across Europe during the twentieth century,including in universities37), the University of Lisbon programme isencouraging institutions to do more and better in regards to thepreservation of their scientific heritage. It is pragmatic, driven byminimal preservation standards, and it draws from already existingmotivation, awareness, and resources. For the purposes of this paper,the University of Lisbon programme also demonstrates that scientificheritage preservation needs new institutional tools and approachescombining in situ preservation with long-term partnerships and net-works between museums and the institutions where the heritagewas generated.

4. The preservation of recent heritage of science

All the general tools mentioned above—legislation, surveys,partnerships, training, policies and procedures, increased use forteaching, research, and outreach—apply to the preservation of sci-entific heritage generated after World War II. Again, however,there are specific issues that we briefly address here. Rather thanmitigating the challenges, these specific issues amplify them andrequire considerably more research, training, and resources.Clearly at the top of these issues lies the vertiginous speed ofequipment use, obsolescence, and disposal. Experiments are dis-mantled and laboratories reorganised every day in universitydepartments. This, combined with the size and complexity of theequipment, makes it difficult for institutions to respond to selec-tion and preservation even when clear criteria, policies, and proce-dures do exist. The response must be equally swift. Size also posesrenewed storage problems, reinforcing the need for in situ preser-vation and interpretation—a mass spectrometer laboratory or anelectron microscopy laboratory should be preserved as a whole.New materials pose conservation and restoration problems; andthere may be intellectual property and patent issues. Post-war col-lections in the life sciences (blood, tissues and DNA samples,among others) also pose new conservation and ethical problems.

Perhaps the biggest problem, however, is related to associateddata. On the one hand, documentation has been gradually shiftingfrom paper to digital. On the other hand, equipment required fordata retrieval becomes obsolete in increasingly shorter periods.This has resulted in the dispersal of sources, the increasing imma-teriality of object documentation processes and the emergence of

34 Trust is crucial because institutions tend to be wary of this type of service. In the early years of the programme, the Museum had continuously to remind institutions that ourapproach was in situ preservation, access and use and that we were not looking for objects to increase our own collections. As the programme evolved and word of mouth spread,this stopped being a problem. In any case, trust continues to be paramount.

35 Initially developed for the Cultural Heritage Survey of the University of Lisbon (Pascoal et al. 2012; Teixeira 2012), the classification tool has been regularly used in theMuseum’s Scientific Heritage Programme.

36 Being in the University of Lisbon, the Museum has access to students from diverse fields (History of Science, Biology, Museum Studies, Anthropology) and these are oftenchanneled to the Programme. They work for a limited period in the institutions with interesting mutual benefits (collection studies, essays, theses, etc).

37 For example, at the University of Utrecht, Utrecht Universiteitsmuseum provides support to dispersed collections since the 1990s. The same happens with the GustavianumMuseum at the University of Uppsala (Lourenço 2005).



new skills (digital curating and management). To a large extent,these challenges are shared with the preservation of archives anda considerable body of literature already exists (e.g. Moore, 2008;Tibbo, 2003). However, further research, standards and guidelinesare required in the case of recent heritage of science documenta-tion, particularly the preservation of relations between objectsand associated data. Artefact intelligibility for public interpretationand exhibition purposes poses the ‘‘black box’’ problem (Brenni,2000), considerably aggravated when artefacts have little if anyassociated data. The fact that the heritage is ‘‘recent’’ signifies thatscientists, inventors, operators, and technicians are likely to bealive in most cases and oral testimonies can be collected (Wilson,in press).

The combination of these and other issues requires interdisci-plinary and all-encompassing approaches to the preservation,study, and access of scientific heritage. Little in the way of such ap-proaches has been developed, let alone widespread and consoli-dated selection criteria, policies, and procedures. Apart from thecases presented in this volume, several universities in Europe areworking at the level of policies and practices, e.g. the Universityof Cambridge,38 the University of Turin (Fausone & Galloni, 2012),and the University of Strasbourg (Soubiran, 2008), among others.39

The European Academic Heritage Network Universeum has createdin 2011 a working group on recent heritage of science (RHS WG)to compile preservation policies and best practices and develop toolsto assist universities in recent heritage management, access, andinterpretation, among other aims.40

4.1. Cambridge: building a network

Surveying, as we have already remarked, is an essential firststep, though, as we have also stressed, this must be accompaniedat some point with an element of object biography. The Univer-sity Cambridge has attempted this step, though it is far from hav-ing the research element, and this is an important aspect in thenear future. But there are other activities that can be happeningin parallel to cataloguing, which, if it is to include an elementof background research will of necessity be slow given the lackof resources.

It is precisely the difficulty of knowing exactly what is there—onshelves, in cupboards, technicians offices—together with meetingmany interested scientists and technicians and seeing their ownexisting projects for preserving their heritage, which has prompted

the parallel step (Wilson, 2013). This is to provide a network with-in the University of interested parties in the science departments,so that they can provide ideas and support and develop joint pro-jects. As in the University of Lisbon case presented above, histori-ans of science and museum professionals would also be part ofthe network, providing coordination and also general support suchas ideas for finding funding, expert advice in putting together exhi-bitions, and so on.41

Crucially, this step builds on projects that are already happen-ing; it harnesses local expertise that museum professionals cannothave; it utilises new spaces for storage and display; and it opens upnew revenue streams in supporting work, from alumni, science re-search councils, outreach budgets, and science departments’ ownbudgets.

Observing and supporting activity throughout the Universitycan also feed into the debates we have already outlined concerningthe definition of scientific heritage: how the historical actors treatand deal with their own history can give ideas and solutions con-cerning the unnatural interaction of ‘‘science’’ and ‘‘heritage’’ notedabove. Both concepts vary across disciplines, and historians andheritage theorists can benefit from fresh ideas. The scientists andtechnicians can provide the object biographies, with unique con-textualisation including oral testimony, much more easily thancan an outsider to the department.

The situation is behind Lisbon’s programme, but the founda-tions have been laid. Most importantly, at department levelsawareness has been raised; there is also increasing awareness ofthe need of broader policies across the University for the preserva-tion of the recent memory and artefacts of science in Cambridge.As in Lisbon, these policies can be implemented through Cam-bridge’s university museums, which are well-known and worldclass. Among these, the Whipple Museum is especially dedicatedto the preservation of scientific heritage given its vast experiencein promoting collections-based research and teaching, its remark-able exhibition record, and its close relation with the Departmentfor History and Philosophy of Science.

5. The study of scientific heritage

Perhaps the most important tool to preserve scientific heritageis to study it. A bunch of old instruments in the attic of an academichospital are not scientific heritage per se. They become scientificheritage only after we provide them with a meaning that

Table 1Classification tool used at the University of Lisbon for evaluating collections according to material conditions. Criteria include catalogue, conservation, security, and physicalaccess. In theory, all museum collections should be Type IV collections, but that is not always the case in university museums for example. The aim of the programme is to bringall collections to Type IV levels.

Collection Classification

Category Criteria

Type ICollection

Collection with no catalogue/inventory and physically inaccessibleCollection with no inventory or list of items, unorganised (unselected) and located in an inaccessible room or in a room with difficult access (e.g. attic,basement). (Note: strictly speaking, this is not a collection but the term is used here for simplicity)

Type IICollection

Partly catalogued collection and physically accessibleCollection with less than 50% of catalogued or listed objects, organised minimally in an accessible and dedicated location

Type IIICollection

Catalogued collection and physically accessibleCollection with at least 50% of catalogued or listed objects, organised minimally in an accessible and dedicated location

Type IVCollection

Catalogued collection, physically accessible, with security and minimal conservation standardsCollection with at least 50% of catalogued or listed objects, organised minimally in an accessible and dedicated location, with access control andstable environmental conditions

38 See Jardine, this volume.39 See also the above mentioned French national programme, coordinated by the Musée des Arts et Métiers in Paris (Ballé, Cuenca, & Thoulouze, 2010).40 See http://universeum.it/working_groups.html (Accessed 17 November 2012).41 Universeum’s Working Group for the Preservation of RHS is working on toolkits for this type of support. See http://www.universeum.it/working_groups.html (Accessed 1

February 2013).



transcends their mere materiality and therefore justifies their pres-ervation to the next generation. This requires documentation andresearch into their biographies.

Research into scientific heritage can be done from multipleareas of study, but the most important is the history of science,through material culture methodologies (Lourenço & Gessner,2012; Taub, 2003; Wittje, 2010). This applies to historical artefactsand spaces as well as to collections and naturalia. If an object ismeaningful as heritage, then its meaning comes from the life ithas lived.

Relations between history and heritage have not been withoutcontroversy. In a famous book, Lowenthal (1998, p. 2) stated that‘‘heritage relies on revealed faith rather than rational proof.’’ Dom-inique Poulot, a French scholar who has reflected extensively onthe problematic relations between history and cultural heritage(e.g. Poulot, 2010), has discussed the low regard of history andthe social sciences towards cultural heritage. In the case of the his-tory of science and the heritage of science, recent years havebrought us a long way from that low regard. The ‘‘material turn’’in the history of science (Taub, 2011, p. 690) has given increasingrelevance to objects and collections as primary sources and a con-siderable body of literature already exists.42 As the ‘‘material turn’’consolidates with time, it is expected that more reference materialswill be published and material culture will become increasinglypresent in history of science postgraduate studies. This, in turn, willhopefully increase the relevance and use for research and teaching ofscientific collections in museums, universities and other teachingand research institutions. Nothing could contribute more to theirpreservation and, ultimately, to their interpretation to broader seg-ments of the public.

6. Concluding remarks

We have argued that the heritage of science, including the her-itage of recent science, is worth preserving and explaining to futuregenerations of scientists and the general public alike. We have alsoargued that scientific heritage and its associated documentationare an integral part of the scientific infrastructure and thereforerelevant sources for research, teaching and outreach.

At the same time, scientific heritage has been excluded in prac-tice from cultural heritage preservation legislation. It has low vis-ibility in society. Contrary to natural heritage, for example,whose preservation has strongly mobilised biologists worldwide,scientific heritage does not have a clear and well-defined profes-sional voice to promote it politically and socially. In itself, scientificheritage is not a clear and well-defined concept. Its real dimensionand distribution are unknown. Scientific heritage is the ‘‘dark mat-ter’’ of the heritage universe. We know it is out there but we seempowerless to identify, measure, or describe it. Scientific heritage isvulnerable and disappearing without us even knowing it existed.

In this paper, we have discussed some of the reasons for thisstate of affairs and we have also compiled some of the most impor-tant tools for the preservation of scientific heritage: surveys andnational programmes, legislation, new institutional approaches—combining in situ preservation, the establishment of selection cri-teria, policies and procedures, training, and the establishment ofnetworks with museums—and the increasing importance of re-search as an integral tool to preservation. The Scientific HeritagePreservation Programme of the University of Lisbon, encompassingalmost two dozen research and teaching institutions, was pre-sented as an example of what can be achieved at micro-scale, withminimal resources, and without the multiplication of (often

unsustainable) museums. At the University of Cambridge, the Sci-entific Heritage Project has focused on the recent heritage of sci-ence through research into object biographies, although it shareswith Lisbon the same in situ preservation approach, through theengagement of departments and the creation of networks.

A lot remains to be done, however. Surveys per institution, perregion, and per country, using consistent methodologies so thatdata can be compared, are the top priority because we cannot pre-serve what we do not know. Then, further research into scientificheritage in its multiple dimensions—including fundamental as-pects such as definition and scope, selection criteria, collectionclassification criteria, recent heritage of science—is also of para-mount importance. Good practices around the world should alsobe better known and published. Raising awareness towards scien-tific heritage in teaching and research institutions, combined withthe training of specialised professionals and increased use of col-lections for teaching and research is also an important front thatneeds further development. Finally, collaborations between insti-tutions—museums, universities, schools, academic hospitals—atnational level for criteria calibration and integrated managementof collections, although certainly problematic, would represent amajor step towards more meaningful preservation and access, par-ticularly in the case of the recent heritage of science.

In the midst of so many regulations, norms, calibrations, it iseasy to fall into the ‘‘preservationist trap’’ and forget why we dowhat we do in the first place. Ultimately, we preserve scientificheritage for the public. Not to ‘‘educate’’ them about science,let alone to tell them what they should think. The point of heritage,as Lowenthal (1998, p. 23) correctly points out, ‘‘is not that thepublic should learn something, but that they should become some-thing. Merely to inherit is not enough; people must realise thatthey are heirs to the past, heirs to the collections which theyown, free to decide for themselves what they are going to do withthe past, what it means for them now and what it may mean forthem in the future.’’ The scientific heritage we preserve, study,and interpret—in its vertiginous change but also in its constantpresence—is profoundly entangled with our millenary quest forknowledge about nature, the universe, and ourselves. It is pro-foundly entangled with what it is to be us.

Acknowledgements

Marta C. Lourenço is grateful to the Portuguese Fundação para aCiência e Tecnologia (FCT) and the Brazilian Conselho Nacional deDesenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) for providing fundsfor research leading to reflections presented in this paper. LydiaWilson is grateful to the Isaac Newton Trust, Cambridge, for fund-ing the Scientific Heritage Project, Department of History and Phi-losophy of Science, which led to this paper.

References

Adviesgroep Rijksdienst Beeldende Kunst (1996). Om het academisch erfgoed.Zoetermeer: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen.

Arnold-Forster, K. (1989). The collections of the University of London: A report andsurvey of the museums, teaching and research collections administered by theUniversity of London. London: London Museums Service.

Arnold-Forster, K. (1993). Held in trust: Museums and collections of universities inNorthern England. London: HMSO.

Arnold-Forster, K. (1999). Beyond the ark: Museums and collections of highereducation institutions in Southern England. Winchester: Southern MuseumsAgency.

Arnold-Forster, K., & La Rue, H. (1993). Museums of music: A review of musicalcollections in the United Kingdom. London: Museums and Galleries Commission/HMSO.

42 See, for example, the focus sections of volumes 96 (2005) and 102 (2011) of Isis and the special issues 38(2) (2007) and 40(4) (2009) of Studies in History and Philosophy ofScience.



Arnold-Forster, K., & Weeks, J. (1999). Minerals and magic lanterns: The university andcollege collections of the South West. Somerset: South West Museums Council.

Arnold-Forster, K., & Weeks, J. (2000). Totems and trifles: Museums and collections ofhigher education institutions in the Midlands. Bromsgrove: West MidlandsRegional Museums Council.

Arnold-Forster, K., & Weeks, J. (2001). A review of museums and collections of highereducation institutions in the Eastern Region and the South East Region of the SouthEastern Museums Service. Bury St Edmunds: South Eastern Museums Service.

Ballé, C., Cuenca, C., & Thoulouze, D. (Eds.). (2010). Patrimoine scientifique ettechnique. Un projet contemporain. Paris: La Documentation Française.

Bass, H. (1984a). Survey of university museums in South Eastern England. MiltonKeynes: Area Museums Service for South Eastern England.

Bass, H. (1984b). A survey of museums and collections administered by the Universityof London. London: London Museums Service.

Boudia, S. (Ed.) (2003). Patrimoine scientifique: Construction, usages et publics,Rapport pour la Mission du Patrimoine Ethnologique du Ministère de la Culture.Accessible at: <http://www.ethnologie.culture.gouv.fr/recherche/pdf/R_444.pdf> Accessed 01.09.12.

Boylan, P. J. (1999). Universities and museums: Past, present and future. MuseumManagement and Curatorship, 18, 43–56.

Brenni, P. (2000). Old artifacts and new challenges: The future of history.Europhysics News, June 6.

Brenni, P. (2012). The cumbersome heritage: Is there a future for universitycollections? A few informal suggestions. In S. Talas & M. C. Lourenço (Eds.),Arranging and rearranging: Planning university heritage for the future (pp. 15–21).Padua: University of Padua Press.

Corradini, E. (2011). POMUI: The web portal of Italian university museums. UMACJ,4, 77–84.

Council of Museums in Wales (2002). Dining amongst the bones: A survey of museumcollections in Welsh universities. Cardiff: Council of Museums in Wales.

Cuenca, C., Thomas, Y., & Ballé, C. (2005). Le patrimoine scientifique et techniquecontemporain: Un programme de sauvegarde en Pays de la Loire. Paris:L’Harmattan.

Cuenca-Boulat, C. (1997). Premiers repérages du patrimoine santé à l’Université deNantes. La Lettre de l’OCIM, 53, 37–40.

de Clercq, S. W. G. (2003). The ‘Dutch approach’, or how to achieve a second life forabandoned geological collections. Museologia, 3, 27–36.

Drysdale, L. (1990). A world of learning: University collections in Scotland. Edinburgh:HMSO.

Durand, M. (2011). Herbiers publics et privés. Inventaire des herbiers de la régionProvence Alpes Côte d’Azur. Aix-en-Provence: Ville d’Aix en Provence/Muséumd’Histoire Naturelle. Accessible online at: <http://www.museum-aix-en-provence.org/Herbiers_PACA.pdf> Accessed 01.12.12.

Faure, A. (2011). Herbiers publics et privés. Inventaire de la région LanguedocRoussillon. Paris: Tela Botanica.

Fausone, M., & Galloni, M. (2012). To be or not to be a museum. In S. Talas & M. C.Lourenço (Eds.), Arranging and rearranging: Planning university heritage for thefuture (pp. 85–89). Padua: University of Padua Press.

German Council for the Sciences and Humanities (2011). Scientific collections asresearch infrastrutures. Accessible at: <http://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/archiv/10464-11-11_engl.pdf> Accessed 01.0912.

Granato, M. (2010). Panorama sobre o patrimônio de ciência e tecnologia no Brasil:Objetos de C&T. In M. Granato & M. C. Lourenço (Eds.), Coleções científicas deinstituições luso-brasileiras: Patrimônio a ser descoberto (pp. 78–102). Rio deJaneiro: MAST/MCT.

Josefsson, U. & Worley, J. (2010). Föremålssamlingarna vid Uppsala universitetsinstitutioner. [Delrapport 1: Förutsättningarna för ett samlat omhändertagandeav det vetenskapliga kulturarvet vid Uppsala universitet; Delrapport 2:Förutsättningarna för ett samlat omhändertagande av det vetenskapligakulturarvet vid Uppsala universitet]. Unpublished project report. Uppsala:Museum Gustavianum, Uppsala University.

Lewis, G. D. (1984). Collections, collectors and museums: A brief world survey. In J.M. A. Thompson (Ed.), Manual of curatorship (pp. 7–22). London: Butterworths &Museums Association.

LOCUC (1985). Rapport landelijke inventarisatie universitaire collecties, 1985. DenHaag: Landelijk Overleg Contactfunctionarissen Universitaire Collecties &Ministerie van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen.

Lourenço, M. C. (2004). Musées et collections des universités: Les origines. La Revue,41, 51–61.

Lourenço, M.C. (2005). Between two worlds: The distinct nature and contemporarysignificance of university museums and collections in Europe. PhD thesis,Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers. Accessible at: <http://webpages.fc.ul.pt/~mclourenco/> Accessed 07.05.12).

Lourenço, M. C. (2012). Royal cabinets of physics in Portugal and Brazil: Anexploratory study. Opuscula Musealia, 19, 71–88.

Lourenço, M. C., & Felismino D. (2013). Between teaching and collecting: The lostcabinet of physics of Princes José and João of Portugal (1777–1808). In Jim A.Bennett & S. Talas (Eds.), Cabinets of Experimental Philosophy in Eighteenth-Century Europe (pp. 137–154). Leiden: Brill.

Lourenço, M. C. & S. Gessner (2012). Documenting collections: Cornerstones formore history of science in museums. Science & Education. Accessible at: DOI:10.1007/s11191-012-9568-z. Accessed 31.12.12.

Lowenthal, D. (1998). The heritage crusade and the spoils of history. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Maison, L. (2002). L’exposition des instruments anciens d’astronomie: Histoire etdéfis actuels. La Lettre de l’OCIM, 84, 39–44.

Moore, R. (2008). Towards a theory of digital preservation. International Journal ofDigital Curation, 3(1), 63–75.

Mott, M. L., & Sanglard, G. (Eds.). (2012). História da Saúde em São Paulo: Instituiçõese patrimônio arquitetônico (1808–1958). Rio de Janeiro: Editora Manole Lda.

Northern Ireland Museums Council (2002). A survey of the university collections inNorthern Ireland. Belfast: Northern Ireland Museums Council.

Pascoal, A. M., Teixeira, C., & Lourenço, M. C. (2012). The University of Lisbon’scultural heritage survey (2010–2011). UMACJ, 5, 101–110.

Pinheiro, M., Lourenço, B., Duarte, M. C., Franqueira, M., & Lopes, D. (2009).Metodologia e tecnologia na área de manutenção e conservação de bens edificados.O caso do Núcleo Arquitetônico Histórico de Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro: FIOCRUZ.

Pôrto, A., Sanglard, G., da Fonseca, M. R. F., & Costa, R. G.-R. (Eds.). (2008). História dasaúde no Rio de Janeiro. Instituições e patrimônio arquitetônico (1808–1958). Riode Janeiro: FIOCRUZ.

Poulot, D. (1998). L’Histoire du patrimoine, un essai de périodisation. In J.-Y.Andrieux (Ed.), Patrimoine et société (pp. 21–34). Rennes: Presses Universitairesde Rennes.

Pugnaloni, F. (2003). The future of the university museum’s system in Italy.Museologia, 3, 51–54.

Poulot, D. (2010). Le patrimoine: Histoire et dévelopement récent. In C. Ballé, C.Cuenca & D. Thoulouze (Eds.), Patrimoine scientifique et technique. Un projetcontemporain (pp. 15–26). Paris: La Documentation Française.

Reerink, H. (2012). A portal to Dutch academic heritage. UMACJ, 5, 111–118.Sánchez, J. R. B., Belmar, A. G., Lorente, M. C., & Castel, J. S. (2010). Los instrumentos

científicos de los centros de enseñanza secundaria en España: Historia, estadoactual y futuro del patrimonio científico educativo. In M. Granato & M. C.Lourenço (Eds.), Coleções científicas de instituições luso-brasileiras: Patrimônio aser descoberto (pp. 15–46). Rio de Janeiro: MAST/MCT.

Simon, J., Bertomeu Sánchez, J. R., & Belmar, A. G. (2009). Nineteenth-centuryscientific instruments in Spanish secondary schools. In M. C. Lourenço & A.Carneiro (Eds.), Spaces and collections in the history of science: The laboratoriochimico overture (pp. 167–184). Lisbon: Museum of Science of the University ofLisbon.

Soubiran, S., Lourenço, M. C., Wittje, R., Talas, S., & Bremer, T. (2009). Initiativeseuropéennes et patrimoine universitaire. La Lettre de l’OCIM, 123, 5–14.

Soubiran, S. (2008). Patrimoine et histoire de la physique à Strasbourg. In M.-J.Mailfert & L. Rollet (Eds.), Mémoire et culture matérielle de l’université(pp. 107–117). Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.

Taub, L. (2003). The history of science through academic collections. ICOM StudySeries, 11, 14–16.

Taub, L. (2011). Reengaging with instruments. Isis, 102, 689–696.Teixeira, C. (2012). Património Cultural da Universidade de Lisboa: Levantamento e

contributo para a sua valorização. New University of Lisbon: UnpublishedMasters in Museology.

Tibbo, H. R. (2003). On the nature and importance of archiving in the digital age.Advances in Computers, 57, 1–67.

Tully, F. L., & Davoigneau, J. (2002). L’aventure de l’inventaire. La Lettre de l’OCIM, 84,8–16.

University Museums Group (2004). University museums in the United Kingdom. Anational resource for the 21st century. Sine loco: Norwich Colour Print.

University Museums Project Committee (1998). Transforming Cinderella collections:The management and conservation of Australian university museums, collections &herbaria. Sydney: Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee.

University Museums Review Committee (1996). Cinderella collections: Universitymuseums and collections in Australia. Sydney: Australian Vice Chancellors’Committee.

Van-Praët, M. (2004). Heritage and scientific culture: The intangible in sciencemuseums in France. Museum International, 56(1–2), 113–121.

Warhurst, A. (1986). Triple crisis in university museums. Museums Journal, 86,137–140.

Weber, C. (2012). Recent recommendations by the German Council of Science andHumanities on scientific collections as research infrastructures – A report.UMACJ, 5, 95–100.

Weber, C., & Lourenço, M. C. (2005). UMAC worldwide database. In P. B. Tirrell (Ed.),Proceedings of the international committee for university museums and collections(UMAC) (pp. 43–46). Norman, OK: Sam Noble Museum of Natural History,University of Oklahoma.

Willett, F. (1986). The crisis in university museums in Scotland. Museums Journal,86, 141–144.

Wilson, L. (2012). Intangible histories and the invisible technician. UMACJ, 5, 17–22.Wilson, L. (2013). Dispersed collections: Collaborating with scientists and

technicians. Shaping European university heritage – Past and possible futures(proceedings of the XIII Universeum Annual Meeting). Trondheim: The RoyalNorwegian Society of Science and Letters (in press).

Wittje, R. & O. Nordal (2005). Universitetshistoriske samlinger ved NTNU – Rapport frakartleggingen av vitenskaps- og teknologihistoriske gjenstander og samlinger vedNTNU, og perspektiver for bevaring og tilgjengeliggjøring for forskning,undervisning og formidling. [Forum for kunnskapshistorie – skrifter no. 4].Trondheim: Tapir akademisk forlag.

Wittje, R. (2010). Reading Artifacts: Historische Sammlungen und innovativeKonzepte in der Lehre. In C. Weber & K. Mauersberger (Eds.), Universitätsmuseenund -sammlungen im Hochschulalltag: Aufgaben—Konzepte—Perspektiven(pp. 79–86). Berlin: Hermann von Helmholtz-Zentrum für Kulturtechnik.

Worley, J., & Josefsson, U. (2010). Managing the scientific heritage of a medievaluniversity: The case of Uppsala University. Opuscula Musealia, 18, 51–60.


Scientific heritage: Reflections on its nature and new approaches to preservation, study and access

Documents

Transcript of Scientific heritage: Reflections on its nature and new approaches to preservation, study and access