Margaret Mitchell

Are surgical museums such as the Hunterian doomed?

The redesigned Hunterian rightly hasn't hidden away its 2,000 specimen jars – but the ethics of such displays are increasingly being questioned

The redesigned Hunterian concentrates on the wonders of surgery rather than the museum’s doomed Eurocentrism. © Hufton+Crow  
issue 27 May 2023

I have a soft spot for specimen jars and skeletal remains. Museums of natural history, surgical pioneering or anthropological oddities have always struck me as equally suitable for lunch breaks and first dates as for serious study and research. As far as public and casually accessible encounters with mortality go, these kinds of museums are the most straightforward way of confronting the realities of human nature. But whether we should have this kind of casual access is now increasingly being questioned.

Telling history through displays of human remains presents a challenge for curators. They are responsible for contextualising exhibitions to ensure that the remains don’t become a dehumanised spectacle, while knowing they ultimately lack the ability to guarantee beyond doubt that their message will hit its target.

Two thousand physiological specimens are arranged in rows of pale yellow lumps of flesh, organ and bone

Last November, the Wellcome Trust decided context wasn’t enough.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in