I went to the Science Museum in London the other day, and was a little surprised to find that pretty much none of it is actually about science in any way whatsoever.

The majority of the exhibits and ‘interactives’ (it’s a noun now) are completely devoid of anything that is recognisably scientific: instead you get, look! This is what astronauts have to poo in. Isn’t zero gravity weird? A longer lever makes things easier to move than a shorter one, you’re shown. Why? Who cares! The only explanations you get anywhere are utterly trite, as in the exhibition about personality. Why are people different? The answer: it’s because of their DNA and brains, and because of things that have happened to them in the past. Which, as explanations go, doesn’t really add anything of value, apart from some vaguely sciency terms.

Nothing in the place ever bothers to ask how? or why? Instead, you get touch screens, various costly and fictional space flight simulators, and pointless personality tests like you might waste time doing on the Internet (well, it’s not Are You a Penis or Vagina?, but it’s not much better). Nowhere is it asked or explained, what is science? And most people will leave the place without having a clue.

Worst of all is the interactive about the MMR vaccine and autism. Videos of two people give opposing sides of the ‘debate’ are shown: a woman doctor (who’s name and position I have forgotten) gives the (correct) summary that the evidence shows no link between the two. This is followed by a video from a professor (of what?) from the University of Sunderland*, in which he claims that the evidence for a link is overwhelming. And that’s it.

There’s nothing to tell you the truth, which is that no credible evidence has ever been found linking the two. Instead, like the worst science coverage in the media, a factual matter, one that effects the health of young children, is reduced to a debate between ‘experts’, with the actual evidence playing no part. Both sides deserve a say and equal time in which to say it, no matter how groundless, or even dangerous, their claims may be. This, from a science museum.

The user is then invited to leave their comments on the issue, giving the (wrong) impression that individual opinion actually matters when it comes to evaluating this sort of claim. Which, as a science museum should be making clear at every opportunity, is the exact opposite of what science is: what you think you know and what is actually going on may be two very different things indeed, and the only way to find out is through the evidence.

And finally, in a more practical objection, the toilets were disgusting. Fail all round for the Science Museum.

*After reading Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science book, I think the professor could possibly have been Paul Shattock of the University of Sunderland who, at least a few years ago, seemed very keen to claim he’d found evidence of a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism, but also seemed very reluctant to actually publish his research. Who possibly isn’t the sort of scientist you want to see in the Science Museum.