This article was published in Museum News July/August 2003.

Wisdom in Hungry Times

By Frank Shafroth

Frank Shafroth served as director of state and federal relations, National Governors Association, Washington, D.C., from 1999 to 2003.

In the 1970s, I was a Peace Corps volunteer, teaching junior high school in Konweaken, a small village in the West African rain forest. An early task was to meet the tribal elders; their approval was a prerequisite to gaining respect from my students. One of those elders was Old Man Chicken Soup; he derived his nickname from the bouillon cubes he used to flavor rice, especially during “hungry time” when there was no other food. Old Man Chicken Soup understood hard times. He knew they can come when least expected, and he knew that resorting to chicken soup could make that rice taste a little better and fill some empty spaces.

Almost all of the nation’s states are currently experiencing hard times, perhaps the worst they’ve ever seen. There can be no question that states are confronting both a short-term “perfect storm” of financial hardship and a long-term misalignment of the heavens. For museums, that will mean tightening belts, rethinking roles, creating new partnerships, and using some of those precious bouillon cubes for the current “hungry time.”

The current fiscal situation of the states is precarious. Deficits are as great as they have ever been; the decline in revenue is unprecedented. The stars are out of alignment. But when we look forward, the fiscal situation becomes even more serious: states are confronting a long-term structural fiscal chasm.

On the revenue side, a state revenue system constructed in a manufacturing era is outdated in the current knowledge- and service-based global economy. On the spending side, health care represents about 30 percent of the average state budget; Medicaid alone represents 20 percent of this cost. Total health care costs are growing at 13 percent this year, following an 11-percent increase last year. The spiraling costs of health care are a national problem, leaving few options available to states seeking to control their budgets (particularly given the political difficulties caused by reducing benefits and eligibility for Medicaid recipients). Absent fundamental changes in the program, it will continue to grow at unprecedented rates, with aging Americans imposing extraordinary demands on the U.S. health care system; exhausting their financial resources; and relying more and more on Medicaid for their final years. Moreover, as the federal government imposes more unfunded mandates (such as the new election-reform legislation) on states and local governments; makes federal revenue decisions that have adverse impacts on state revenues; and operates as though states were not an integral part of the U.S. economy, states will be forced to bear even greater burdens.

There is little evidence that states’ current problems are due to excessive spending or mismanagement. State government spending and employment are no higher today than they were three decades ago, considering the size of the economy and job base. But state tax revenues have been hurt by the soft economy and the collapse of the stock market, which has undermined capital gains revenues and stock-option income. Tax revenues continue to decline or, at best, grow only weakly, while demands on state expenditures remain strong. In addition to the unanticipated growth in Medicaid spending, homeland security costs in the wake of the terrorist attacks in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania have exacerbated states’ fiscal problems. And most states have exhausted their available financial resources. To close their budget gaps last year, states drew on rainy day funds, used tobacco settlement funds, and increased borrowing. The rock has been squeezed dry. Harder decisions lie ahead.

Because all but one state—Vermont—must balance its budget on an annual basis, most states have already begun to cut payrolls; reduce funding for important human and physical infrastructure investment programs, ranging from health care and education to highways and prisons; and even raise taxes. In January of this year, state government employment was lower than it was a year ago. This is only the third time since World War II that state payrolls have declined on a year-over-year basis. And this “hungry time” is not brief, but rather long-term and structural. It will take states at least three to five years to recover. In the short-run, they have no alternative but to cut spending. But in the long-run, states will have to enact bold, progressive, and far-reaching initiatives and significantly rethink exactly what services and goods government should provide.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the budget surplus/deficit for state and local governments is as large as it has been since World War II, both in absolute dollar terms and as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In the current fiscal year, 15 states face a budget gap in excess of 5 percent of their general fund budgets, with four states experiencing a 10-percent or greater gap. The outlook and challenges for next year are even bleaker. For FY 2003, states initially were compelled to close budget gaps of nearly $50 billion. They are now in the process of closing an additional $25-billion gap for this fiscal year. Preliminary projections for FY 2004 (with 37 of the 50 states reporting) indicate that state budget gaps will be at least $68 billion and might approach $100 billion. If trends continue, some states will have experienced four consecutive years of budget gaps. In addition, pending federal tax changes could sharply reduce incentives for leveraging private investment in state and local economies.

While the worst of the decline in tax revenues is largely over, this fiscal year state revenues are expected to rise only marginally at best. Despite the end of the war in Iraq, reconstruction costs will put increasing pressure on federal budgets—which is certain to be reflected in reduced assistance to state and local programs—and unreimbursed homeland security needs will continue to put pressure on state and local budgets. The near-term outlook is bleak.

Looking slightly further ahead, on April 15 Standard & Poor’s (S&P) Ratings Services published a report on the creditworthiness of state and local governments, stating that the increasing longevity of the U.S. population is adding pressure to the already strained finances of state and local governments, which will only become more acute with the passage of time. As state and local governments try to manage the effects of a struggling national economy, weak equity markets, tax reductions, and expenditure pressures, increasing longevity will have a significant impact on their cost structure well into the 21st century, particularly from the standpoint of the delivery of pension and healthcare benefits to governmental retirees.

State government layoffs will reduce family incomes, which in turn will result in weaker demand for all types of goods and services. State governments also have just begun paring back spending on a wide range of activities and programs. Public infrastructure spending will be particularly hard hit. Such spending has been expanding at a rapid rate, about 8 percent annually, since the mid-1990s, much of it on educational buildings but also on roads and airports. Spending fueled by increased caseloads for need-based income maintenance and healthcare programs is more difficult to rein in, but even in those programs, cutbacks are occurring. Even spending on education is coming under scrutiny and likely will be pared back. A growing list of states also has begun to consider raising fees, tuition, and even taxes. For the most part, the increases will take the form of increased cigarette and gasoline taxes, but higher sales and personal income taxes are a growing possibility.

So what might Old Man Chicken Soup say to a museum director? He told me once that he would prove to me that he spoke better grammar than I, the teacher. I foolishly accepted the challenge, and the next night, he invited me to the old part of the village. A council of the elders was seated on their country chairs. They made room for me. He made the rules: first I would tell a story, then he would tell a story. He who drew the most laughter and nodding would win. Need I say more? The old man won the contest. He knew there was more than one way to approach a problem.

Museums will want to think outside of the box: rethink how to approach state leaders about museums’ roles and importance to state economies; rethink relationships; and rethink their dependence on state funding.

As states begin to invest more into making themselves competitive in the global economy, many are incorporating arts and cultural exchanges in their international trade and business development approaches. This is a two-edged opportunity. In 2001, international visitors spent $73.1 billion in the United States, supporting more than 1 million jobs in states. More than 7.8 million visitors from abroad visited cultural or ethnic sites in 1997, spending more than $14 billion. Make sure business and political leaders in your state think about how to take advantage of your museum to enhance trade, tourism, and economic development. Develop strategies to identify potential linkages and key relationships in overseas markets that might enhance your state’s export markets. Demonstrate to your state how cultural exchanges can create a foundation for new and expanded trading relationships.

With states forced to make deep cuts even in priority programs such as education and the arts and sciences, think about the collaborative role museums could play. What better laboratories exist than in museums; what better art and music classrooms; what better places for business and post-graduate learning after hours? Think about creating vibrant new roles and partnerships.

A growing number of state universities are moving to divorce themselves from dependence on state aid. The annual uncertainty about funding, and strings on such funding, undercuts the ability to develop long-term stability. Breaking up is hard to do, but self-dependence and reliance on what universities do best (teach)—instead of determining how politically effective they are at competing for ever scarcer resources—are proving to be tantalizing.

Age garners respect in Africa. In Konweaken, villagers understood that maturity and experience matter. Old Man Chicken Soup understood that wiles and humor can add spice to the most trying situations. So who better to use the wisdom of the ages and cultures than museums?

Facing “The Perfect Storm”

By David M. Darlington

David M. Darlingtonis assistant editor, AmericanHistorical Association. Aversion of this articlefirst appeared in AHA’smonthly newsletter,Perspectives.

The impact of the current fiscal crisis on history programs cries out for concern. Across the nation, state archives, historical societies, and libraries with invaluable resources are struggling to cope with cuts and proposed reductions that threaten to severely limit, and in some cases, completely eliminate programs and services.

The heads of historical organizations realize that like other state agencies they, too, must be fiscally disciplined. But, they are anxious because the severity of the proposed cuts will affect the services they provide to the public and historians for years to come. Preservation and tourism are just two of the areas that will take a hit. “We take very seriously our responsibilities as an educational institution, steward of our state’s history, employer, and economic driver for communities,” says Minnesota Historical Society Director Nina Archabal. “It pains us greatly to reduce our service to Minnesotans.”

Concerned about how some political leaders have responded to the budget crisis, the American Historical Association (AHA) has taken several steps, including urging legislators to look for options other than eliminating critical historyprograms. Responding to proposed cuts in New Jersey—including the elimination of the $4.2-million New Jersey Historical Commission and its operating grants program—AHA, the Organization of American Historians, and the Community College Humanities Association wrote to Gov. Jim McGreevey in February: “The efforts to balance the budget by dismantling a nationally recognized cultural resource are shortsighted and in the long run will diminish New Jersey’s revenues from cultural tourism.”

To get a better picture of the scope and magnitude of the threat, between late February and April, AHA queried state historical societies, archive programs, and humanities councils, asking them to describe their state’s fiscal situation and the potential impact on their programs. Of the 35 organizations that responded, 18 indicated that they expected budget cutbacks of varying degrees. Only three state-funded historical agencies indicated that they did not expect cuts for fiscal 2004, but two of the three had experienced cutbacks in fiscal 2003. Five privately funded organizations said that they did not receive any state funds. Indeed, one representative noted: “At these times, I thank God that we are privately funded.” (Queries were sent via e-mail to 109 state historical societies and archive programs, and to 44 state humanities councils. Responses also were solicited via the e-mail list of the National Coalition for History Washington Update. Organizations from 29 states responded.)

Though it may seem that privately funded organizations are in a better position, many of them are suffering as well. One respondent wrote that cultural institutions in her state were facing “the perfect storm”—cutbacks in state funding, falling endowment returns, and a decline in corporate, individual, and foundation giving.

One of the states hit hard in FY 2003 was Massachusetts, where the budget of the Massachusetts Cultural Council (MCC)—the primary source of operating support for cultural institutions, including the state’s many history museums and historical societies—was cut by 62 percent (from $19.1million in FY 2002 to $7.3 million in FY 2003). The budget for the Massachusetts Historical Commission alsowas slashed. The loss of funding resulted in cuts in fund-

raising and outreach efforts and cultural and youthprogramming, fewer grants for community arts projects, and the loss of 72.5 full-time jobs at 46 cultural organizations. (The MCC has full details on its Web site at www.massculturalcouncil.org/news/surveyresults.html.)

Massachusetts is one of the three states whose governor hasn’t proposed additional reductions for FY 2004, and as of late April, the legislature’s House Ways and Means Commitee proposed levelfunding from FY 2003.

Many states are facing crises for FY 2004 similar to the one Massachusetts faced in FY 2003, and the impact on history programs and archives likely will be similar. Administrators of history programs in Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin indicate that they expect budget reductions for FY 2004.

In Washington, both the Washington State Historical Society, Tacoma, and the Eastern Washington State Historical Society, Spokane, expect approximately 14-percent cuts. The Washington State Library in Tumwater, will receive about a 60-percent cut, causing it to virtually cease to existas a public agency.

Historical agencies in a number of states expect to be hit by a one-two combination—reductions for FY 2004 following a budget slashing in FY 2003.

Arizona had to eliminate nearly half a billion dollars from its FY 2003 budget, and a cut of $1 billion is expected for FY 2004. For FY 2003, most state agencies, including the historical society, state library, and archives, had to slash at least 10 percent. The 2004 budget “may even be more drastic,” says Dan Shilling, executive director of the Arizona Humanities Council. “Needless to say, there won’t be any major increases for history-related activities.” The Mining and Mineral Museum, Phoenix, which has collections that date back to the 1880s was threatened with closure and had to cut one staff position, but it has weathered the storm for now, says Curator Susan Celestian. In March, the Arizona Historical Society began charging admission for the first time at its seven museum sites, says Director of Public Relations and Marketing Joan Nevin.

Wisconsin’s governor has recommended that the Wisconsin Historical Society reduce its budget and eliminate 30 positions that are supported by General Purpose Revenue (GPR)—tax dollars—as of July 1, 2003. This would constitute a 15-percent cut in GPR and cutting 24 percent of GPR positions. “No other similar state agency saw a cut that big except those that were completely eliminated,” says state historian Michael Stevens. The pending cuts would be in addition to a $1.3-million reduction and elimination of 15 GPR positions in the current fiscal year. Combined, this would mean that 45 out of 140 tax-supported positions would be eliminated over a 12-month period.

Today, the budget for the South Carolina Department of Archives and History is virtually identical to what it was in FY 1987. For FY 2004, it is facing a 5.5-percent cut ($250,000). This comes on the heels of two reductions in FY 2003 that forced it to furlough all employees for five days between March 1 and June 30, 2003. “We are just trying to keep our basic services functioning,” says Director Rodger E. Stroup. The department has had to lay off staff and return a federal grant from the National Historic Records and Publications Commission because the matching state funds were lost.

Connecticut is in an equally dire situation. In his budget proposal in early March, Gov. John Rowland announced the creation of the “Connecticut Commission on Arts, Culture, and Tourism,” which, if approved, would merge the Connecticut Historical Commission with the state’s Film Commission, Commission on the Arts, and the Tourism Division of the Department of Economic and Community Development. The goal of the new entity is to increase efficiency and save money. Heritage organizations are upset about the proposed reorganization because it would result in severe cuts in museum and preservation funding. According to Bruce Fraser, executive director of the Connecticut Humanities Council (CHC), “the new commission has no specific heritage granting program nor, indeed, does it mention heritage support anywhere in its organizing language, other than acknowledging the current historic preservation responsibilities of the Historical Commission.”

Furthermore, the governor’s budget would eliminate funding for four state museums (the Old Newgate Prison and Copper Mine, Prudence Crandall Museum, Henry Whitfield State Museum, and the Sloane-Stanley Museum), a historic restoration tax credit, the Historical Commission’s $600,000 historic restoration fund, and CHC’s $1-million Cultural Heritage Fund and $175,000 in grants. Supporters of the existing historical programs have formed the Connecticut Heritage Coalition to advocate maintaining current funding levels of the CHC’s Cultural Heritage Development Fund and preserve the organizational and financial integrity of the Connecticut Historical Commission. (The coalition has a Web site at www.ctculture.org/chdf/index.htm.)

In Maryland, state support for the archives budget for FY 2004 is being reduced by 12 percent. The archives already has replaced in-person reader and research-room services with Internet-based services and may not be able to develop new finding aids.

The state historical society in Minnesota, which will suffer a 16-percent reduction in state funding in FY 2004, expects to have to close seven of its 24 sites and lay off nearly 200 full- and part-time employees. It also will reduce the hours and offerings at its Minnesota History Center in St. Paul. As part of a last-ditch effort to prevent the closures on July 1, the society was working with local groups that had expressed interest in the sites, says Public Relations Coordinator Marjorie Nugent.

The examples cited here only scratch the surface, and there doesn’t seem to be an end in sight. As pointed out earlier, the National Governors Association estimates that it will take three to five years to overcome the current crisis. If state history institutions and programs are to weather the storm, they must band together and stress how crucial their resources are to the public.

State of the States:  Tough Years Ahead

By Jack Nokes

Jack Nokes is executive director, Texas Association of Museums, Austin.

As an interested observer of the Texas legislature for the past 35 years, at times I think I have seen it all. After all, this is the same august body that once passed a resolution commending Albert de Salvo for his exemplary work in population control. (Whether the legislators realized at the time they were honoring the “Boston Strangler” is still a matter of debate.) However, our elected leaders have never faced a deficit anywhere near the $8.1 billion estimated for the next two years. The legislature’s response during this spring’s legislative session has left even the most cynical observers bewildered.

Back in April when the Texas House of Representatives debated the budget, irony and partisanship ruled. In a game of political football, the parties switched jerseys, with the Democrats attacking arts and culture as the Republicans defended them. “I haven’t had a constituent of mine write me and say, ‘We have to take care of the Historical Commission,’” said Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, about a Democratic proposal to abolish the commission and use its $10-million budget to pay for home care for the elderly and the disabled. The GOP-controlled House defeated the measure 86 to 51, noting that it had already cut $37 million (for historic courthouse restoration) from the commission’s $50-million budget. In another vote, Republican lawmakers rejected a Democratic attempt to pit funding for the Texas Commission on the Arts against money to help disabled people. And so it went.

As of this writing, cultural funding news in Texas looks bad but not catastrophic. TCA’s annual budget of $6.5 million would be cut by about 12 percent to $5.8 million under the House plan with very little reduction in the grants program. After losing the $37 million in capital funds for courthouses, the Texas Historical Commission’s (THC) base budget of $13 million also would take a 12-percent hit. For Texas museums, the loss of state funding would not have dramatic impact, in large part because neither cultural agency provides large grants to museums—about $15K maximum from TCA and about $2K maximum from THC. As Bob Dylan once sang: “When you ain’t got nothin’, you got nothin’ to lose.”

Unfortunately, this is not the case in other states. Mary Turner, director of the Illinois Association of Museums, reports that the Illinois legislature, grappling with a $4.8-billion deficit, froze all Public Museum Program grants not already paid out for this year, and it plans major cuts in grant funds for next year. Last year operating grants totaled $5 million and capital grants $10 million (bumped up to $36 million late last year by former Gov. George Ryan and the Republican legislature.) The current governor’s proposed budget abolishes all operating grants and would reduce capital grants to $5 million.

Although Florida faced a relatively small deficit of $400 million (less than 1 percent of a $54-billion budget), museums, arts, and culture still battled to keep their funding. In the end, annual funding was slashed to a quarter of what it was in FY 2002-2003, from $63.5 million to $15.6 million. Included on the hit list were $25 million in bricks-and-mortar funding for cultural facilities and $18 million for general operating, education, and touring exhibition grants. The Florida governor and Republican majorities in both houses also cut/redirected the dedicated revenues from a $16-million trust fund that has supported cultural institutions since 1988. As Malinda Horton, director of the Florida Association of Museums, puts it: “Things are bad and getting worse.”

Anne Ackerson, director of the Museum Association of New York, reports that her state is facing a $12-billion deficit for the next biennium to overcome shortfalls from the recession, the Sept. 11 recovery, a drop in tourism, and national security costs. New York’s governor has proposed deleting $6.6 million (or 15 percent) from the grants fund of the New York State Council on the Arts, a prime funder of museums and historical organizations. This compounds the $35.6-million cut to New York City museums and cultural organizations proposed in Mayor Bloomberg’s budget.

Oklahoma is facing the worst budget crisis in state history with a current budget deficit of $352.2 million. The legislative budget ax lopped 7.85 percent across the board from state agency funding for the current fiscal year. An estimated $600-million budget deficit for FY 2004 portends more reductions of 10 to 20 percent. Less money to the Oklahoma Arts Council FY 2003 budget resulted in cuts to some museums and cultural organizations generally in the range of 5 to 15 percent.

California, the state with the “mother of all deficits”—$35 billion over the next 15 months—also is looking to its state arts council to find money. Gov. Gray Davis has recommended decreasing its $21-million annual budget to $12 million, while one legislative proposal would abolish all arts council funding.

Reports from Arizona, Colorado, Virginia, New Jersey, Nebraska, and North Dakota were variations on the same theme: legislatures on the verge of a fiscal breakdown, museums and cultural institutions fighting to stave off catastrophic cuts or total elimination of funding.

So is there any good news out there? Glad you asked. Pennsylvania museums may have no state funding problems for the fiscal year beginning July 1. In his proposed budget, Gov. Ed Rendell called for an increase of $150,000 to the annual museum assistance grant appropriation.

And what are the prospects for years to come? Depending upon whom you ask, states are facing their worst fiscal crisis: a) since the Great Depression; b) since World War II; or c) in history. Even if state legislatures are able to reconcile $30 billion in FY 2003 deficits, the National Governors Association reports that they will face an estimated $80-billion budget shortfall in FY 2004.

Cumulatively, according to the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, state arts agency appropriations dropped from $408.6 million in FY 2002 to $353.9 million in FY 2003, a 13.4-percent decrease. If our museums are to count on state funding for the future, I fully expect us to have to fight even harder either to preserve the gains we achieved over the past decade or to limit the amount of the next round of cuts.

FORUM:At Natural History Museums, The Ox is Gored

By Leonard Krishtalka

Leonard Krishtalka is director of the Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center at the University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Natural history museums seem to be dropping like flies. In recent months the University of Nebraska State Museum, University of Iowa Herbarium, Michigan State Museum, Virginia Museum of Natural History, Museum of Northern Arizona, San Diego Natural History Museum, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and other biodiversity research enterprises have been closed, curtailed, or threatened with cuts.

Some museum officials, borrowing from Hollywood, blame the depressed economy’s “perfect storm.” As costs for personnel and infrastructure have shot up, museums have been pounded by precipitous drops in state allocations, endowment income, visitor numbers, gate receipts, grants, individual donations, and corporate gifts.

Hollywood’s perfect storm was celluloid make-believe. The museum closings and cuts are harsh reality for curators and collection managers suddenly without jobs; for collections suddenly shuttered from care or use; and for the biodiversity community suddenly without access to research collections for its science.

The perfect storm notwithstanding, much of the biocollections community blames the museum-busting administrators, classifying them as latter-day Visigoths. Don’t they realize the importance of our collections to science and society, the community asks in the flood of e-mail, protest letters, and published articles that follow each closing or cutback. Why is our ox being gored?

Good questions. The answers won’t be found in creating cartoon villains or willing our self-importance. Rather, finding the answers requres taking both the long view and a healthy dose of intellectual honesty.

Blame. First, quit blaming the administrators. Most of them are decent scholars who have been handed the impossible task of weathering massive deficits. When they slash history departments or natural history collections, it’s not out of ignorance but fiscal necessity: in the end, something has to go. Blame the perfect economic storm and the state legislatures that passed massive tax cuts in the 1990s under the mistaken belief that boom years and surpluses would continue forever.

Change. Second, as evolutionary biologists, we should know that the history of life—of organisms or organizations—is change. The current museum perturbations have been standard fare in the history of collections. In the recent past, Princeton University closed its entire vertebrate paleontology shop after more than a century in the business and shipped it to Yale; Stanford University dumped all of its collections on willing takers; the Carnegie Museum forsook its fishes; the University of Kansas divorced its mollusks and mosses. The complete list is a history of shifting organizational missions, scientific focus, curator interests, economic booms and busts, and competition for the research and education dollar. Truth is, once the collections were resettled, their use, their conservation, and the science they generated were for the better. Not all collections were created equal, not all have equal scientific value, and not all institutions can sustain them in perpetuity.

Internal orphans. Third, a worse storm has been blowing for decades deep within many of the nation’s largest natural history museums, with no equivalent outcry. World-class collections, many more than 100 years old, have been orphaned within their own institutions. Lacking dedicated research or curatorial personnel, these collections and their essential biodiversity data no longer have currency in research and education.

In the long view, is the threat to the Scripps collections any more ominous than the oldest mammal and herpetology collections in North America lying fallow at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia? Ditto the massive mollusk collection at the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh, mothballed as a research enterprise more than 25 years ago. Some major institutions—e.g., the natural history museum in San Diego—have made strategic decisions to close their entire scientific and collections enterprises, at least until endowments could fund curatorial resurrections.

National leadership. Fourth, intellectual honesty demands a long, hard look in the mirror. Our national leadership, formerly the Association of Systematics Collections, now known as the Natural Science Collections Alliance, has failed to fashion a vibrant, cohesive biocollections community out of the assorted free-standing and university-based natural history museums. For their part, most museums preferred to remain “isolated island endemics undergoing genetic drift.” (Krishtalka and Humphrey, 2000) Yes, biodiversity science was a global enterprise, but its undergirding collections were deemed local and idiosyncratic.

As a result, and in sharp contrast to other scientific communities, museum collections did not reap the magnificent revolutions in ideas, resources, and economies of scale wrought by unity of purpose, community collaboration, collective infrastructures and powerful new technologies. In short, we did not insist on effective, strategic national leadership, and we chose not to do business as a community. Now we are playing catch-up.

Warning. Fifth, it’s not as if we weren’t warned. Here is Pere Alberch’s 1993 deafening alarm:

Natural history museums are at a turning point in their history. They can now play a central and critical role in the development of research leading towards the understanding, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. To achieve this goal, however, they must radically change their mode of operation and public image, to clearly define goals, objectives, and new research strategies. If museums are unable to meet the challenge, other institutions will be created de novo to fill the niche. . . . Museums cannot be dominated by the philosophy of inward-looking curators, working leisurely on their taxa of choice all their lives.

A few years later, two of us in these and other pages (Krishtalka and Humphrey, 1998, 2000; Krishtalka, 2000) elaborated Alberch’s call to arms. To fulfill their mission to science and society, natural history museums had to revolutionize their biodiversity science, redesign graduate education, reinvent their public programs, and reform their management and leadership.

The good news. Many museums have gotten the message. They have formed powerful interdisciplinary partnerships to avail themselves of major research, education, and budgetary initiatives at the National Science Foundation, particularly in collection-based biodiversity science: planetary biodiversity surveys; monographic revisions; reconstructing the tree of life; enhancing taxonomic expertise, especially for the planet’s poorest known organisms; creating research and collection networks; erecting mega ecological and biodiversity observatories across the landscape; establishing a center for synthesis in evolutionary biology; and networking the knowledge gained with other disciplines for grand challenge research and education.

This is the landscape of the future for natural history museums: fusing their legacy of collection-based knowledge with 21st-century biology, which is multidisciplinary, multidimensional, scalable, information driven, predictive and model based, education oriented, and increasingly virtual and global. When we occupy this landscape, fewer of our oxen will be gored.

References

Alberch, P. 1993. Museums, collections and biodiversity inventories. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 372-375.

Krishtalka, L. and P. H. Humphrey, 1998. Fiddling while the planet burns. Museum News 77, no. 2: 29-35.

Krishtalka, L. 2000. Answering theAliens: Museum Biodiversity Education. Curator 43, no. 2: 103-110.

Krishtalka, L. and P. H. Humphrey,2000. Can natural history museumscapture the future? BioScience 50, no. 7: 611-617.