The journal Nature reports in this article that the Darwin Centre, a wing of London's Natural History Museum, is using architectural and technological innovation to alter the way visitors understand natural history and the museum's primary work: taxonomy. The center calls itself a "research institution open to the public." Researchers are required to spend 5% of their time interacting with the public, and the public can access the work of the center both onsite and through weekly webcasts.

I wonder if there is any way in which such a model could be transferred to the type of research we do?



I am reminded of Stanley Fish's views in Professional Correctness that a field that does not remain intelligible and distinctive (and thus valuable) in the public's mind may be sowing its own extinction. I believe there are benefits to making the work we do as researchers available and interesting to the public, especially at a time when the attitude towards our field is generally unsympathetic, and the public still views postmodernism as a form of nihilism or moral relativism. So, I ask again: Is there any way in which such a model of publicly accessible and valued research can be transferred to the type of research we do?