Evaluation and Discussion of Genetics Content in Museums

Abstract

BackgroundGenetics literacy is crucial for making informed personal decisions. With rapid advances in genetic technology, a foundational understanding of genetics is now more important than ever for meaningful engagement with questions surrounding health, privacy, and policy. However, genetic content engagement barriers, including geographic unavailability, lack of prior education, and misleading media narratives, can make it difficult to reach diverse populations. Furthermore, with growing mistrust in science and genetic information, interventions to improve genetics literacy, particularly to those beyond a K – 12 classroom, require an approach centered on building science trust and self-efficacy. ResultsFor the meta-analysis, we found genetics content in 88 of the 691 museums queried, typically in science (n=37) and natural history (n=25) exhibits. While genetics content was present in 42 states, there were large portions of the country that were more than 150 miles away from any museum featuring genetics. We found a high concentration of genetics content in sponsored exhibits and a low concentration of content within children’s museums, reinforcing narratives of genetic technology as product and genetics as difficult, respectively. In framing devices, museums fell into one of three categories. Museums with the meta-narrative “Genetics is Fun” focused on interactivity and volunteer facilitation, and emphasized specific inherited traits and genetics tools and technology. Museums highlighting the meta-narrative “Genetics is Relevant” highlighted DNA basics and health testing. Finally, museums with the meta-narrative “Genetics is Discovery” featured heavy use of fishbowl-style genetics labs, highly visible museum collections, and an emphasis on visitor participation in science research. ConclusionWhile each of these meta-narratives leads to high engagement with genetics topics, they also all lead to construction of different personal identities around these topics. For example, watching a diverse set of scientists work in a fishbowl lab broadens definitions of who can be a scientist, but active participation in a genetics experiment through volunteer facilitation builds science self-efficacy. Furthermore, narratives focusing on technological breakthroughs alone may inadvertently send a message that genetics is complex and impersonal. Exhibit creators should consider the design ramifications of each of these choices when creating an impactful genetics exhibit.