Background+EF

In the late 17th century, Leibniz dreamt of a science-based world fair in his writing “Odd Thought,” wherein there would be an exchange of ideas between the public and science endeavors. He wrote of a “museum of everything that could be imagined” and imagined that it would be an interactive space for lay-people to partake in scientific activities.

Although Leibniz’s idea may have been ahead of its time, it soon manifested itself to some degree in the form of small collections of scientific artifacts available to the public, including the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia which opened its doors as a museum space in 1828. These scientific exhibits were largely non-interactive, but they laid the groundwork for the public engagement of science. In the early 20th century, the push toward more engaging and interactive displays was explored by the Deutches Museum in Munich Germany, which was inspiration for the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.

Through the various iterations of science museums and public outreach expositions, as with the science festival in Philadelphia in 2012, something often missing is the presence and acknowledgement that scientific knowledge may be contentious – they are typically based on normative, current and realist frameworks. Often these spaces, such as the Exploratorium in San Francisco and the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, are focused on demonstrations of technology or “scientific” phenomena rather than the transfer or display of specific scientific inquiries and knowledge.

This current emphasis on interactive displays with a focus on technology is also manifesting itself within the Maker movement and in various community centers and makerspaces. Although tinkering and making in general has a very long history, its current popularization with a focus on production and entrepreneurship seems to be particularly salient. Radioshack first opened in 1921 as a provider of equipment for ham radio amateurs and DIY tinkerers. It quickly became a fairly large chain where tinkerers could acquire component parts for working on projects they found in magazines or which were a product of their own invention. However, with the advent of the internet in the 1990s and the onset of the digital age, these hands-on circuitry and engineering projects waned, as reflected in Radioshack’s move to sell ready-made equipment and cellphones. This trend, however, may be slowly turning once again. In 2005, the Arduino was developed as a tool for students working with interactive media for the easy manipulation of physical components, such as motors, lights, etc., by a small micro-controller, or computer, that one could easily program. The excitement over the possibilities of this product have grown in the light of being able to “Do-It-Yourself” and create interesting projects with opensource hardware using an opensource program for control. The digital and the physical were joined. This is further demonstrated by websites such as “Instructables.com” which was launched in 2006 as a way for Squid Labs (based out of MIT Media Lab) to share information online and create a global community for the dissemination of its projects. Maker culture and interest in its possibilities has become so high, even, that Radioshack started carrying them along with other kits in 2011, heralding a move back toward their early days of emphasizing tinkering and making. Meanwhile, in 2010 the TI Launchpad was introduced as a much cheaper alternative and competitor to the Arduino.

Since equipment for fabrication and making is often expensive, hacker and makerspaces where individuals could pool and share resources also began to crop up. Typically these spaces are grass-roots organizations focused on skill-sharing, fun projects and camaraderie among individuals with a anti-consumerism emphasis. As these spaces have developed, and become more “makerspaces” than “hackerspaces” there are some that have picked up on the entrepreneurship trend that has also become a part of maker culture. This is most noticeably realized by the chain of TechShops which were started in Menlo Park, CA in 2006, with an emphasis on small businesses and entrepreneurs wanting to fabricate for product designs.

This sudden shift in sociotechnical practices could possibly mean a complete shift in how technology is utilized and transformed by everyday citizens. In light of past events, it is these sociotechnical regimes of making that I think would be quite relevant to explore, particularly as a site of scientific engagement for the public and in contrast to other sites of public engagement of the sciences. The possibilities that these sites hold for a critical understanding of scientific endeavors and toward a technological citizenship has not been fully realized, although there are some sites that and it is still unclear whether these practices could take root, or where they might best take root.