The closure of the Academy of science museum is shortsighted and a failure of leadership

 François Gould, PhD

François Gould is a Philadelphia resident since 2019 and an associate professor in New Jersey. Although now primarily a neuroscientists, he was a paleontologist in the aughts, and worked on collections at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in DC, the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, and other museums around the United States. 

            Growing up, my high school looked out at the world famous façade of Natural History Museum in London, a building designed in 1881 by Alfred Waterhouse as an architectural celebration of the natural world. Today I am an Associate Professor of Neuroscience, doing federally funded research to understand how and why swallowing goes wrong in children and adults. My research’s ultimate aim is to improve treatment of these life-threatening problems. My current career is without a doubt a direct result of my childhood spent roaming the halls and exhibits of the museum in London, learning everything about biology that I could. This is why I consider the surprise announcement of the closure of the Academy of Natural Sciences Natural History Museum nothing less than a betrayal of Philadelphia’s scientists of the future. The loss not only of a space to discover the wonders of the natural world, but of the youth engagement programs offered by dedicated professionals at the museum, will rob Philadelphia’s children of the chance to discover a lifelong passion like I did.

However, beyond my personal connection to natural history museums, my professional experiences make me skeptical of the limited communications coming from the institutional leadership on this matter. For context, I spent seven years working in museum collections throughout the United Kingdom and North America between 2004 and 2012. In addition, I spent just under a year in 2007 working in fundraising and development for a legacy science advocacy organization, the Royal Institution, founded in London in 1799. Much like the Academy of Science, the Royal Institution is housed in a historic building, and is connected to incredibly important scientific moments in the history of Great Britain, including key discoveries in elemental physics.

In 2007, the prevailing trend in development was for legacy institutions to sell property they owned and invest the proceeds in the stock market. As a result of this policy many historic, financially healthy non-profits, the RI included, ended up in financial straights after the 2008 financial crash with no sources of revenue. Buildings, once sold, cannot be regained, permanently depleting asset sheets. In addition, these historic buildings are often in central locations, which provide fundraising opportunities as event spaces. Large purpose-built historic buildings like the Academy’s are also often sold for far less than expected as they are expensive for developers to convert. The fate of many of the University of the Arts buildings on Broad street confirms this. The sale of the Academy’s building, which forms part of the current memorandum of understanding, will probably do little to stabilize long term the finances of either Drexel or the Academy.

More concerning as a scientist, important collections, including fragile fossils and botanical specimens, are housed at the Academy. No details exist on the purported new new home for these collections. Buildings housing collections require state of the art environmental controls. Collections are difficult to move. Specimens are fragile, and have to be carefully inventoried so they can be retrieved in the new location. It is a time-consuming process, incompatible with a rapid sale of the Parkway property. The Natural History Museum in London is scheduling nine years just to prepare its collections for a move in 2030. Why, then, the urgency to close the museum?

Taken together, the announcements by the leadership of the institutions involved are not consistent with a serious commitment or understanding of museums as both places of learning and research. In combination with other recent events in Philadelphia, such as the sudden closure of University of the Arts, leadership of Philadelphia legacy institutions of culture and learning have demonstrated they lack the care, imagination, and sense of responsibility to run them. Given their six to seven figure remuneration packets, this is not a tragedy, it is a farce and a betrayal.

We lament when bombs destroy museums in wars abroad. Yet the damage done here, as a result of neglect and financial panic, is barely less severe. Bombs, at least, are honest in their intent. We must oppose the cultural and educational vandalism that is closing the museum at the Academy.

NB: I submitted this post originally as a an op ed to the Philadelphia Inquirer, a paper I respect and support but that I feel, on the whole, has not taken this story seriously enough from the perspective of the institutional mismanagement of Philadelphia's important cultural legacy. Until as a city we start valuing places like the Academy of Natural Sciences, The Art Museum, our universities and libraries, the leadership of these institutions will continue to not be up to the task of stewarding them for another hundred years.