Science Museum, London: Letting Corporations Control Young Minds

Take one major museum, a childrens exhibition about the environment and add three sponsors who between them represent three of the most environmentally destructive industries on Earth, and you have The Science Of Survival...

It’s very rare for me to be able to take an image straight from a web site and use it, completely unchanged. In the case of this one from London’s famous Science Museum, it says so much, how could I make it any worse? “Your Planet Needs You” juxtaposed with “Sponsored by BASF, HSBC and NISSAN” makes me think that either the public are really stupid (possible, but probably not) or the people who arranged this exhibition are so in awe of the greenwashing lies of the corporate sponsors, and their money, that they let anything pass.

Speaking to various people at the Science Museum and the company arranging the exhibition, The Science Of…, it seems as though there is some sympathy with my concerns, yet when you look at the companies doing the sponsoring, and the jury-rigged press information, you realise that this one has been greenwashed to the hilt:

"Sara Milne CEO of The Science of… said “We are delighted to be working with BASF, HSBC and Nissan. Together we are confident that launching this project, which investigates one of the biggest challenges ever faced by mankind, will have a positive impact on society. With the support of our sponsors we have developed a compelling interactive journey that delivers these messages in a highly entertaining and accessible manner. The Science of Survival cuts through the confusion of climate change concerns to provide a positive experience which shows a sustainable future really is possible if we work together.”"

"The three global sponsors of The Science of Survival have made a five year commitment to see the exhibition through to the end of its global tour. BASF, HSBC and Nissan. are committed to tackling the important issues addressed in the exhibition, not only through their business operations but also by their investment in education and the environment."

(

http://www.scienceof.com/download.php?id=89)

Ok, nothing too surprising here – The Science Of are part of the trading arm of the Science Museum, and exist to make money which can then be funnelled back into the museum. A pity it’s dirty money, but that’s what happens when you open up public services to commerce. And that “five year commitment”; well, five years of having your company name associated with a world tour of a childrens education environmental exhibition is manna from heaven for the greenwashing corporate.

The sponsors themselves appear to be great environmental stewards:

"BASF, HSBC, and Nissan all share a commitment to a more sustainable future."

"BASF’s portfolio ranges from chemicals, plastics, performance products, agricultural products and fine chemicals to crude oil and natural gas. BASF develops new technologies and uses them to meet the challenges of the future. The company strives to combine economic success with environmental protection and social responsibility, thus contributing to a better future."

"For HSBC, corporate responsibility means managing its business responsibly and sensitively for long-term success. HSBC lends and invests in areas such as low carbon energy, water infrastructure and sustainable forestry, sharing responsibility for the environment with governments and citizens to minimise the damaging effects of human activity — pollution of land, water and air and the depletion of resources."

"Nissan’s philosophy towards the environment, “Seeking a symbiosis of people, vehicles and nature,” describes the company’s ideal for a sustainable mobile society, now and in the future. They initiated the Nissan Green Program with specific objectives to realise this vision, and are now pursuing it energetically and passionately."

(

http://survival.scienceof.com/12/partners/overview.html)

Let’s see: one of the world’s largest chemical and biotech companies; one of the world’s largest commercial investment banks; one of the world’s largest motor manufacturers — all sharing “a commitment to a more sustainable future”. That would be economically sustainable wouldn’t it? I can’t think of any other type of sustainability the big players in Industrial Civilization are interested in.

But what about the kids; the real targets of the exhibition? For a start they will go away thinking that big companies are really nice friendly things trying to save the world — greenwashing for kids is big business. Not only that, there is a cast of four characters that guide the children through the exhibition; each of them has a particular characteristic, and I have to reproduce this in full so you don’t think I’m making this up:

-----

Buz
Buz is what they call a people person. She is the one that keeps this group of friends together. Buz ‘s approach to a sustainable world is to make sure everyone’s needs are met, no matter who they are or where they live. She wants us all to agree on solutions which work for everyone, not just a few people. But sometimes keeping things equal and fair means making sacrifices that the others aren’t always happy with.

Tek
Tek really likes her technology. And she likes to talk about it too, though sometimes she is a bit hard to understand. Tek reckons that technology can come to our rescue and help us live more sustainably, conserving resources and minimising effects on the environment. Though developing new technology can take energy and resources, Tek thinks it’s well worth it.

Dug
Dug likes tradition and would stick to the way everything used to be done, if he could. Dug reckons we don’t need new technology or approaches for us all to have a happy future. If we think about what we value, Dug thinks we can use what we already know to reduce our impact without radically changing how we live. He is thoughtful and likes to take time – a lot of time - to think about things.

Eco
Eco likes nature, man. He is always out and about doing the outdoors thing. He thinks that preserving all the natural environments on the planet and rebuilding some that humans have destroyed – is key to a sustainable future. And whilst he wants to keep us all from messing with the planet, he can be a bit annoying when he tries to show us how to do it.

-----

Two problems here: Dug likes tradition, so why does he think we can reduce our impact without radically changing how we live? Surely if he doesn’t want technology then he would insist on getting rid of it: but then that would run counter to the needs of the sponsors, so that option is conveniently removed.

Eco is even more badly misrepresented: apparently he is “a bit annoying”, well of course he is because he doesn’t want hi-tech corporate solutions; he wants to do the obvious, most sensible thing. That’s really annoying, isn’t it.

This exhibition is an atrocity — no one should tolerate companies messing with childrens’ minds. The Science Museum should be ashamed for letting this corporate toy into their halls.

Keith Farnish
Homepage: http://www.unsuitablog.org

Comments

Hide the following 6 comments

Perhaps worse,

03.06.2008 13:29

The whole thing stinks of turning environmentalism into a brand (not that they'd be the first, but it is rather blatant here). Apparently we are "the Eco-Generation" (complete with capital letters, how special we feel now!), presumably the successors to "the Coca-Cola Generation", and "the MTV Generation". This is one of the most serious threats to attempts for a sustainable human way of life - the whole movement, and in particular, the more primitivist/radical/etc elements being marginalised and recuperated by big business.

Pathetic.

Rogue

Sadly

03.06.2008 14:06

Sadly, in a capitalist and media-saturated world where the general population seems to be endlessly guided by definitions given to them from external factors - becoming trendy may be the only way to get the masses to actually start acting? The danger is, of course, creating an illusion to people that they are acting to save the planet when they do things like sign a petition, giving them a sense of satisfaction and a false delusion that they can now sit back and watch as the mess we've made of the planet reverses itself. On the other hand, if eco-friendly mindset becomes more mainstream, it can't be too bad, can it? it will almost certainly be diluted into some pathetic form but surely it would be better to have these as standard norms and values rather than more and more consumerism... just a thought.

Have to say I agree with the above comment though, and can't believe this "science" event.... taking the p*ss a bit isnt it!!

the little recruiting critter looks like Stewie from "Family Guy".

03.06.2008 14:30

I'm a hip MacFarlane generation type. Adults understand but ignore Stewie Griffin you know. So I suppose it's a perfectly apt message to send out.

".....Throughout the first two seasons of the series, it was suggested that none of the other prominent characters (with some minor exceptions) could understand what Stewie says, apparently hearing what he says through their ears as infantile blathering. At the end of the episode "E. Peterbus Unum", the question of whether adults could understand Stewie is raised. In the DVD audio commentary, MacFarlane explains adults can understand him, but don't take him seriously, "sort of like... if a four-year-old who [could] talk told you to 'fuck off', you'd think it'd be cute." In this manner, characters acknowledge Stewie, but pay no mind to his often-insulting addresses, such as calling Peter "the fat man" and referring to Lois by her given name. His insults are occasionally heard, such as when Stewie tells Lois "Why don't you burn in hell?!" Lois replies, "Well, no dessert for you, young man.".......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewie_Griffin

copyright infringement detection bot