See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/354547485

Science Museums: The Brazilian Case

Chapter · September 2021

DOI: 10.1007/978-981-16-5379-7_17

CITATION READS

1 340

2 authors:

Luisa Massarani Jessica Norberto Rocha

Instituto Nacional de Comunicação Pública da Ciência e Tecnologia e SciDev.Net Fundação CECIERJ
279 PUBLICATIONS 1,739 CITATIONS 111 PUBLICATIONS 434 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Olhar do visitante View project

MORE-PE: MObilisation of REsources for Public Engagement View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jessica Norberto Rocha on 04 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter 17
Science Museums: The Brazilian Case

Luisa Massarani and Jessica Norberto Rocha

Abstract Over the past 30 years, Brazil has shown enthusiasm for science museums.
However, due to the political crisis, important challenges are being imposed on
science communication in the country. In this chapter, we present an overview of
the recent history of science museums in Brazil and explore some of today’s critical
issues, such as funding and public policies for science and technology communication
initiatives, access and accessibility. This chapter has been based on documents and
a bibliographical review, as well as on data produced by our research group.

Keywords Science museums · Public policies · Diverse audiences · Access ·

Accessibility · Science communication

17.1 Introduction

Brazil has witnessed a wave of enthusiasm for science museums over the past
30 years, during which time a few hundred new facilities have been built across
the country. However, critical challenges have been faced, due mainly to the current
political crisis. On the other hand, there has also been a growing tendency for science
museum teams to try to extend their reach to more diverse audiences and to forge
relations with publics who have not traditionally been frequent visitors.
Ensuring that museum exhibitions and science communication itself encompass
a diversity of voices, knowledge and social representations is, of course, not a simple
task. This is particularly true in Brazil, which is a geographically immense country
that grapples not only with economic and social inequalities but that has also seen
constant shifts in its public policies in the areas of education, science and technology

L. Massarani (B)
National Brazilian Institute of Public Communication of Science and Technology and Master of
Communication of Science, Technology and Health, Casa de Oswaldo Cruz, Fiocruz, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil
J. N. Rocha
Cecierj Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

© China Science and Technology Press 2021 311

B. Schiele et al. (eds.), Science Cultures in a Diverse World: Knowing, Sharing, Caring,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5379-7_17
312 L. Massarani and J. N. Rocha

(S&T), culture and, consequently, science communication, all in response to political

changes and economic crises.
This chapter traces a brief history of science museums in Brazil and presents an
overview of the vulnerabilities that have been encountered in the construction of this
field. We also reflect on the challenges faced in devising practices to enhance access
and accessibility at these scientific–cultural spaces. In this text, we have adopted
a broad view of the concept of science museums, following the understanding of
the Brazilian Association of Science Museums and Centers, which include not only
science museums and natural history museums but also interactive science centres,
planetariums, zoos, aquariums and botanical gardens, all of which are institutions
devoted to science communication.

17.2 A Brief History

Until the mid-twentieth century, Brazilian science museums had ties to the field of
natural history. They included the Real Horto (Royal Garden, founded in 1808; now
the Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro [Botanical Garden of Rio de Janeiro]); the
Museu Real (Royal Museum, founded in 1818; now the Museu Nacional [National
Museum]), also in Rio de Janeiro; and the Museu Emílio Goeldi (Emílio Goeldi
Museum), in Pará; as well as specific technical collections, such as the Museu do
Ouro (Museum of Gold), in Minas Gerais (Massarani and Moreira 2016). Generally
speaking, those spaces followed the traditional design of museums that hold objects
and collections meant for preservation and that are devoted to static, non-interactive
exhibitions.
In the 1920s, the anthropologist and science communicator Edgard Roquette-
Pinto (1884–1954) founded the Department of Education at the Museu Nacional
(National Museum), which is believed to be Brazil’s first such department attached
to a museum. The unit was responsible for attracting a diverse public to the museum,
beyond just the educated elite; additionally, it circulated natural history collections
and educational pictures by lending them to schools (Lopes 1997; Moreira et al.
2008; Pereira 2010).
The subsequent decades brought a number of initiatives to create science
museums, most of which proved unsuccessful. José Reis (1907–2002), an impor-
tant Brazilian science communicator, presented the Governor of São Paulo with
a proposal in 1946 that would have established a science museum and centre for
historical documentation with the purpose of safeguarding the memory of Brazil’s
scientific heritage. Although Reis’s idea was well received, it was never implemented
(Reis 1984). Other proposals to create dynamic science museums in Rio de Janeiro
and São Paulo were advanced in the 1950s and 1960s.1

1Starting in the 1920s, Roquette-Pinto began planning for the creation of a dynamic science
museum, along the lines of the Deutsches Museum, according to a report by Francisco Venâncio
Filho, who was also an advocate of interactive museums (Venâncio Filho 1995).
17 Science Museums: The Brazilian Case 313

In 1954, São Paulo newspapers began publishing stories about proposals to estab-
lish a science museum and planetarium in Ibirapuera Park.2 According to Reis, who
also had a hand in that proposal, the by-laws and executive committee were actually
drawn up for the museum, which took its inspiration from a number of institutions:
Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry, the US National Museum, the Palais de
la Découverte in Paris, and the London Science Museum (Reis 1984).3 While the
museum never came to full fruition, Brazil’s first planetarium was launched in the
city of São Paulo in January 1957, in Ibirapuera Park.
The Palais de la Découverte, in Paris, served as a model when the scientist Carlos
Chagas Filho (1910–2000) presented a proposal to government authorities in Rio
de Janeiro. In the 1950s, Chagas Filho entered negotiations with Pedro Calmon,
president of the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro) about opening a science museum there (Massarani and Moreira 2016). The
project’s goal was to ‘share scientific knowledge with the public at large, as well as
to complement high school education by providing students with basic ideas, mainly
regarding practical demonstrations’.4 The museum, which was intended to ‘present
topics in physics, genetics, nuclear energy, tropical pathology, and some aspects
of petroleum’,5 was never built. When the Universidade de Brasília (University of
Brasilia) was created, the initial plan was to include a science museum6 —an idea
that resurfaced many times over the years. Although this museum was officialized
on paper in 2014, the facility has not yet been built.7
In 1961, a planetarium was established at the Escola Naval do Rio de Janeiro
(Rio de Janeiro Navy School) so students could have classes in celestial naviga-
tion; the facility was also open to the public two days a week (Steffani and Vieira
2014). Under an agreement between the Ministry of Education and the Democratic
Republic of Germany, another nine sets of planetarium projectors and equipment
were imported; the first of them was the Planetário da Universidade Federal de
Goiás (Federal University of Goiás Planetarium), which was set up in Central-West
Brazil in 1970 (Steffani and Vieira 2014).8 Another product of this agreement was
the Planetário do Rio de Janeiro (Rio de Janeiro Planetarium), which opened in
1970, around the same time that there was renewed talk about creating a Palácio de
C&T (S&T Palace). Also in the 1970s, planetariums were inaugurated in the cities
of Florianopolis (1971), Santa Maria (1971), Porto Alegre (1972), Brasilia (1974)
and Curitiba (1978). In 1979, Bahia established the interactive Museu de Ciência e
Tecnologia (Bahia Science and Technology Museum), based on the experiences of
San Francisco’s Exploratorium; the team at the new centre was trained by a group

2 Diário da Tarde, 6 February 1954.

3 Diário da Tarde, 6 February 1954.
4 Jornal do Commercio, Terceiro Caderno, 14 May 1961, p. 1.
5 Jornal do Commercio, Terceiro Caderno, 14 May 1961, p. 1.
6 Jornal do Brasil, 24 May 1961, p. 11.
7 Decreto No 34.838, de 13 de novembro de 2013 (Governo do Distrito Federal).
8 Other cities where planetariums also opened under this agreement were João Pessoa (1982),

Campinas (1987) and Vitória (1995) (Steffani and Vieira 2014).

314 L. Massarani and J. N. Rocha

from the US museum. Created by law from the State of Bahia in May 1977 and
launched in the city of Salvador in February 1979,9 it seems to have been the first
hands-on science centre in the Southern hemisphere, nine years before the Australian
National Science and Technology Centre (Questacon).
Other science museums opened in the 1980s, including the Centro de Divulgação
Científica e Cultural (Centre for Science and Cultural Communication) in São Carlos
(1982); the Espaço Ciência Viva (Living Science Space) in Rio de Janeiro (1983),
which likewise had the support of the Exploratorium; the Museu de Astronomia
e Ciências Afins (Museum of Astronomy and Related Sciences) in Rio de Janeiro
(1985); and the Estação Ciência (Science Station) in São Paulo (1987) (Hamburguer
2001; Massarani and Moreira 2016).
The 1990s saw an acceleration in the pace of the construction of science museums
in Brazil; at least 45 new centres were inaugurated. They included the Museu de
Ciência e Tecnologia (Museum of Science and Technology) at the Pontifícia Univer-
sidade Católica (Pontifical Catholic University) in Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul
(1993); the Espaço Ciência (Science Space) in Recife, Pernambuco (1995); the Casa
da Ciência (House of Science) as part of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
(1995); and the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation’s Museu da Vida (Museum of Life) in Rio
de Janeiro (1999) (ABCMC 2009). Since then, various other science museums have
been built around the country.

17.3 Public Policy in Science Communication in the 2000s

In 2003, Brazil entered a political period grounded in social inclusion and the reduc-
tion of social inequalities, as the government moved to enact policies to popularize
science and make it a more integral part of daily life.10 Those policies were accompa-
nied by measures to improve science education and stimulate young people’s interest
in science (Ferreira 2014; Massarani and Moreira 2016). The prime expression of
those goals in terms of institutionalization was the 2014 creation of the federal
Departamento de Popularização e Difusão de Ciência e Tecnologia (DEPDI; Office
for the Popularization and Dissemination of Science and Technology), which was
part of the Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inclusão Social (SECIS; Department
of Science, Technology and Social Inclusion), within what was then the Ministry of
Science and Technology (which later became the Ministério de Ciência, Tecnologia,
Inovações e Comunicações (MCTIC; Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovation
and Communication). This office was charged with fostering a variety of initiatives to
communicate science, which included opening new science museums and travelling
facilities and lending support to existing ones; encouraging efforts in extension work

9 Decree no. 25,633, May 1977, Government of the State of Bahia. Available at: http://www.secti.

ba.gov.br/modules/conteudo/conteudo.php?conteudo=28.
10 In Brazil and within the ministry, both ‘science communication’ and ‘popularization of science’

are terms that are used.

17 Science Museums: The Brazilian Case 315

and science communication, in conjunction with universities and funding agencies;

advancing periodic research on the public perception of S&T and devising indi-
cators in partnership with international initiatives; and promoting and supporting
science fairs, Olympiads and competitions that would motivate creativity, innova-
tion and interdisciplinarity (Moreira 2006). The Office for the Popularization and
Dissemination of Science and Technology also worked to establish new science
museums, expand existing ones and encourage travelling facilities by providing
grants or through strategically directed actions, for example, in regions where there
were few or no such scientific–cultural spaces.
Federal public grants were offered to various sectors of society and generally
received a good response. Demand for funding increased over the years as institu-
tions from different regions of the country took an interest in science communica-
tion initiatives. Grant money was awarded on the basis of merit and feasibility, and
emphasis was generally placed on projects that reflected the country’s geographical
diversity.
The first federal grant to support science museums in the scope of this public policy
was released in 2003; some 340 applications were submitted, of which around 35
were approved. Another grant was announced in 2004, this one to help travelling
science museums and centres that used appropriately equipped vehicles to travel
through large cities or into the interior of the country. The Ministry of Science,
Technology, Innovation, and Communication launched two other national grants to
support science museums; some 480 projects were submitted in 2009, of which 110
were approved, while around 335 proposals were submitted in 2013, of which 80
received approval.
From 2003 to 2015, other grants were offered that lent some form of support to
science communication projects, while not focused specifically on science museums;
they included but were not limited to initiatives conducted by science museums. The
following grants were announced during this period: ‘Popularização da Ciência:
Olhando para a Água’ (Popularizing science: looking at water; 2005); ‘Difusão e
Popularização da C&T’ (Diffusion and popularization of science and technology;
2006, 2007, and 2013); ‘Popularização da Astronomia’ (Popularizing astronomy;
2008); and ‘Divulgação Científica para o Ano Internacional da Química’ (Science
communication for the International Year of Chemistry; 2010).
This push by the federal government prompted state governments, funding agen-
cies and foundations to offer grants, primarily through S&T departments and state
research funding agencies. For example, FAPERJ, the Rio de Janeiro state funding
agency, provided at least one grant per year in the area of science dissemination
and popularization from 2007 to 2014. In northern Brazil, in Amazonia, FAPEAM
offered at least one grant focused on popularizing science every year from 2006 to
2015. In Minas Gerais, FAPEMIG put out one grant in 2007 and another in 2010.
Reflecting diversified demand and distinct origins, those federal and state grants
paved the way for the opening of science museums where no such cultural facilities
existed, while the money was also used to enhance and help diversify existing initia-
tives. Furthermore, the grant projects made space for new and different management
teams and voices that had previously enjoyed little space, because in the previous
316 L. Massarani and J. N. Rocha

decades the structures for fostering these initiatives and public policies were more
rigid and closed, and generally encompassed only groups that were already part of
the system.
In 2014, however, the average number of federal and state grants in the area of
the popularization of science declined and no grants were earmarked specifically
for science museums, reducing the quantity and quality of science communication
initiatives promoted by those institutions. Grants were, however, available in 2014
in the area of science fairs and Olympiads. In 2015, a grant was offered for science
communication for the International Year of Light. In 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019,
grants were announced for events related to the National Science and Technology
Week; in 2018, one grant was offered for projects involving girls in the exact sciences,
engineering sciences and computer sciences; in 2019, there was one targeted to
science programmes in the schools. While applications for all of those grants could
be submitted by science museum teams, applicants were not limited to such groups,
and the funds were not aimed specifically at them or their initiatives.
The field also suffered during this period with the closing of the Department of
Science, Technology and Social Inclusion and its Office for the Popularization and
Diffusion of Science and Technology, which had played essential roles in sustaining
public policies in science communication. In 2016, the Ministry of Science, Tech-
nology, Innovation and Communication merged with the Ministry of Communi-
cations, and the office lost both status and funding; it was fully closed in 2019.
Once funds became tighter and political power was lost, the upward trend in the
growth and reinforcement of science communication initiatives witnessed during
the first 15 years of the twenty-first century reversed itself, revealing the underlying
vulnerability of science museums.
Older institutions also closed around the same time, including two of Brazil’s
first interactive museums: Bahia’s Science and Technology Museum and São
Paulo’s Science Station. In an interview given in mid-2017, the president of the
Associação Brasileira de Centros e Museus de Ciência (Brazilian Association of
Science Museums and Centers), José Ribamar Ferreira, said that, of the 268 institu-
tions listed in a guide drawn up by the association, he did not know how many were
still open to the public.11
One counterpoint to this was the Museu do Amanhã (Museum of Tomorrow),
which opened in Rio de Janeiro in December 2015. This museum project sparked
controversies because, while led by private enterprise, it was in large part financed
with public funds. The costly building was designed by Spanish architect Santiago
Calatrava, and its construction was part of a likewise expensive, controversial project
to renew the port region where the museum is located. Nevertheless, the Museum
of Tomorrow has unquestionably drawn large numbers of attendees, many of whom
have been first-time visitors to a science museum. The facility received some 25,000
guests during its opening weekend. Its future is currently shaky, precisely because it
depends on public funds.

11Museus e centros de ciências ameaçados no país. Ciência e Cultura, 69 (1):14–15. https://doi.

org/10.21800/2317-66602017000100007.
17 Science Museums: The Brazilian Case 317

It was against this backdrop of both plunging funds for S&T and the breakdown
of science communication policies that a sad, symbolic event took place: one week
before the National Museum, Brazil’s oldest such institution, was set to commem-
orate its 200th anniversary, a massive fire destroyed the building and much of its
holdings.

17.4 Accessing Science Museums in a Diverse Country

It is vitally important that every opportunity afforded by science museums and

centres benefits all members of society, because access, accessibility and inclusion
in science communication initiatives is a citizen’s right. However, guaranteeing that
right in a country of continental proportions and tremendous social diversity is a
major challenge. With that in mind, science communicators in Brazil—practitioners
and scholars alike—have endeavoured to ascertain who has true access to science
museums, while they have also analysed the impact and the potential that these
facilities have to foster a more inclusive society—one that invites diversity.
Brazilian studies and reports on science museums have shown that around 80%
of their annual public visitors come from schools, especially young children and
teens. This is compatible with data presented by Patiño and collaborators (2019),
who surveyed 123 institutions from 14 Latin American countries and found that
approximately 70% of the public that engages in science communication practices
comprises children (under the age of 12 years) and teens (ages 13 to 18). However,
unequal access is an urgent issue in Latin America, Brazil included.
A report by UNICEF warns that 61% of Brazilian girls and boys—roughly
35 million children—live in poverty; they are either monetarily poor, have been
deprived of one or more rights, or both (UNICEF 2018). In another report, the
agency states that more than 2 million children and teens between the ages of four
and 17 are not in school (UNICEF 2017). While there is a dearth of empirical and
theoretical research on exclusion at museums and other scientific–cultural spaces
and in science communication initiatives in Brazil, the data on school exclusion and
poverty suggests a serious lack of access. Under these circumstances, whether or not
one has a real right to attend school or go to a science museum depends mainly on
luck; that is, whether one is born into the right social stratum.
Outside of school, access to science museums is still the privilege of specific
sectors of Brazilian society, despite efforts to the contrary. A number of nationwide
and region-wide surveys have shown that, although Brazilians display an interest in
science topics and a desire to play a more active role in public decisions related to
those topics, they are not frequent visitors to science museums and centres, either
because there are no such facilities where they live or because their attendance is
influenced or even determined by social factors, such as income, educational level
and urban violence (OMCC 2006, 2008; CGEE 2017; 2019; Massarani et al. 2019).
Nationwide surveys of the public perception of S&T conducted in Brazil have
detected very limited access to science museums (CGEE 2019); only 8% of Brazilians
318 L. Massarani and J. N. Rocha

45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
2006 2010 2015 2019

Visited a library in the past 12 months

Visited a zoo, environmental park or botanical garden in the past 12 months
Visited an S&T museum in the past 12 months
Took part in a science fair or Olympiad in the past 12 months
Visited an art museum in the past 12 months
Took part in National Science and Technology Week

Fig. 17.1 Percentages of interviewees who reported visiting a science or cultural communication
space or participating at an S&T event in 2006, 2010, 2015 and 2019. Source CGEE (2019:15)

reported visiting this type of scientific–cultural space in the previous 12 months

(Fig. 17.1). This figure was in fact lower in the past (4% in 2006), but tripled in
2016 and then dropped again. Since the decrease occurred after the government
curtailed the public policies that were driving the sector, we can conclude that those
policies had been effective. A greater number of visitors attended other scientific–
cultural spaces, such as zoos, environmental parks and botanical gardens—a figure
that peaked at 40% but then fell to 25% in the latest study.
In June 2019, Brazil’s Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia em Comuni-
cação Pública da Ciência e Tecnologia (National Institute of Science and Technology
in the Public Communication of Science and Technology) released data corrobo-
rating the national surveys. The study focused on young people aged 15 to 24 years
across all regions of Brazil. Only 6% of those interviewed reported having visited
a museum or science centre in the previous year; the study also found that partici-
pation in scientific and cultural activities was low. Libraries were visited most often
(35% of respondents), followed by botanical gardens or environmental parks (17%).
The authors point out that ‘generally speaking, these percentages are quite low when
compared to surveys in other countries, especially if we take into account the age of
those interviewed’ (Massarani et al. 2019a:8). According to the report on the survey,
the main reasons interviewees gave for not visiting did not reflect a lack of interest;
rather, a large proportion of the respondents said they had not visited any museum
17 Science Museums: The Brazilian Case 319

or science space simply because there were none where they lived (Massarani et al.
2019a).

17.5 Travelling Science Museums and Centres

The question thus remains: how can we serve the needs of the large numbers of people
who do not visit science museums and centres because there are none where they live
or because, for some social reason, they do not fit the profile of the traditional museum
public? Moreover, science museums in Brazil face a problem with sustainability,
since most have ties to the government or public institutions and charge no admission
fees. At the same time, it is often easier to obtain funding for a new museum, which
affords its sponsoring institutions an opportunity for initial visibility, than to maintain
one. Smaller cities find it particularly hard to open their own museums.
Travelling facilities have offered an alternative path that can mitigate these chal-
lenges. The mission of a travelling science museum is to provide access to science
communication initiatives and high-quality science information to those who have
none. In urban environments, travelling facilities generally set up camp in a public
area without walls and serve people who pass through, free of charge. They can
also travel to the urban outskirts or out-of-the-way places, to areas where violence is
common, or to areas where people have no opportunity to visit a science communica-
tion or cultural environment. Travelling science museums and centres are therefore
a powerful tool for democratizing knowledge and, consequently, fostering inclusion.
After the 1950s, through UNESCO of Brazil and the expansion of the fields of
museology and science communication, this type of travelling project was incen-
tivized both directly and indirectly, as indicated by Trigueiros (1958), who discussed
the international practice of travelling exhibitions and travelling museums using a
number of UNESCO documents. However, it was his contention that the proposed
UNESCO project would be costly and labour-intensive in Brazil; his proposed
solution was to design a bus-museum rather than adapt a truck.
The Museu Itinerante José Hidasi (José Hidasi Travelling Museum) was the
first example of a travelling science museum using a vehicle as its main structure
(Norberto Rocha and Marandino 2017). The travelling museum, which opened in
Goiania, Goiás, in 1965, was kept on the road for 20 years by its founder, José Hidasi, a
Hungarian naturalist, ornithologist and taxidermist. The goal of the museum, which
has since closed, was to popularize the biological sciences through an exhibition
of various animal species titled ‘Curiosidades da Natureza’ (Curiosities of Nature)
(Xavier 2012).
In the 2000s, one notable initiative was the Projeto de Museu Itinerante (Promusit;
Travelling Museum Project) sponsored by the Museu de Ciência e Tecnologia do Rio
Grande do Sul (Rio Grande do Sul Museum of Science and Technology). Inaugurated
in 2001, the project drew inspiration from the Science Circus at Australia’s Questacon
(the National Science and Technology Centre). Its main infrastructure is a wagon
320 L. Massarani and J. N. Rocha

that carries around 60-module exhibitions; once unloaded, the structure becomes an
auditorium for science communication activities.
This successful experience has motivated similar projects around Brazil. In 2004,
a grant for the Projeto Ciência Móvel (Travelling Science Project) marked the institu-
tionalization of this idea. Some 50 applications were submitted, all involving vehicles.
The grant funded the implementation of nine projects across the country. Financed
as part of the national public policy mentioned above, which directed grant funding
to a minimum of 60 other projects from 2003 to 2015, these travelling museums and
science centres employed a variety of vehicles (wagons, buses, mini-buses and vans)
to transport activities and exhibitions beyond the country’s large urban centres to the
urban periphery, small towns, medium-sized cities and rural areas where children,
teens and adults could be stimulated to learn about the universe of science and take
an interest in it. The initiatives have generally been tied to universities’ extension
work, science communication sectors or museums at universities, research institutes
and foundations, although some also operate through private initiatives, NGOs and
social services.
According to a survey by Almeida and collaborators (2015), Brazil had 32 travel-
ling science communication projects. Norberto Rocha and Marandino (2017) charted
34 travelling museums and science centres using some type of vehicle as their main
infrastructure. While Brazil has a significant number of travelling museums and
science centres that have covered millions of kilometres, scholars have done little
research on those facilities, and few records are available on their creation, design,
funding, activities or evaluations. Museum teams themselves have compiled the
scant existing documents, which often are not complete enough to adequately cover
the complexity of the initiatives undertaken. Further research and more studies are
needed on these spaces and their activities, and their histories must be registered. We
must answer these questions: How has the mission of science communication been
conducted? Can travelling science museums contribute to the inclusion of visiting
populations and their relationship with S&T? How might that be accomplished?
What do these institutions offer the public that might leverage that process?

17.6 Accessibility

Data collected in the most recent population census of the Brazilian Institute of
Geography and Statistics (2010) shows that 6.7% of the population (around 12.7
million people) have great difficulty or are unable to perform basic functions and
activities in any way because they are people with disabilities (Botelho and Porciún-
cula 2018).Those individuals come from all social spheres and include children,
young people, adults, students, professionals, scientists, politicians, teachers, profes-
sors and residents of both large cities and small rural towns. However, only more
recently have they been explicitly considered as a potential public for science
museums.
17 Science Museums: The Brazilian Case 321

In 2015, Brazil passed its newest persons with disabilities legislation, titled
Lei Brasileira de Inclusão da Pessoa com Deficiência (Inclusion of people with
disabilities). The law defines accessibility as ‘the right that guarantees that people
with a disability or reduced mobility can live independently and exercise their citi-
zenship and social participation rights’ (Brasil 2015). A product of social pres-
sure, the law was influenced by the UN Convention on the Rights of People with
Disabilities (2006). Yet, despite the new legislation, Brazilians with disabilities
continue to confront myriad barriers in accessing science communication, not only
because science museums do not exist where they live, but mainly because a culture
of accessibility and inclusion has not yet taken a firm hold at those institutions.
Although Brazilian museums have gradually developed strategies, programmes and
policies of inclusion and service for the public with disabilities, those programmes
still need to become part of the facilities’ stated missions and more than just the sum
of an individual’s learning.
In 2016, the research group Accessible Science Museums and Centers worked
with the Latin American Caribbean Network for the Popularization of Science and
Technology (RedPOP) to develop a survey of the regions’ science museums to help
ascertain how they address accessibility. The replies received from institutions in
12 countries showed an increased concern about the engagement of people with
disabilities in S&T issues at science museums and centres. This effort also culminated
in the Guide of accessible science museums and centers from Latin America and the
Caribbean (Norberto Rocha et al. 2017a), which contains information about each
institution’s self-reported accessibility strategies and practices.
An analysis of the total of 109 Latin American museums that responded to the
survey found a significant gap between policies and good intentions, on the one hand,
and active, systematic practices for promoting full and equal enjoyment, on the other.
We noticed that most of what was done to advance accessibility involved changes to
institutions’ physical infrastructures—a strategy that in and of itself does not guar-
antee active inclusion. In the realm of communicational and attitudinal accessibility,
for example, participant museums are still doing little to reach people with disabil-
ities or address accessibility issues. One of those barriers is the lack of institutional
practices aimed at accessibility and inclusion, which would entail, for example, the
allocation of financial resources towards needs ranging from alterations in architec-
ture and exhibition design to human resource training. There is evidence that staff
at many science museums realize they are ill-equipped to effectively meet the needs
of people with disabilities (Norberto Rocha et al. 2020).
Carlétti and Massarani (2015) also concluded that museum personnel are not
adequately trained to serve publics with disabilities and, as a result, they feel insecure
when interacting with those individuals. In a survey of 370 mediators at 200 Brazilian
scientific–cultural spaces, around 60% reported feeling unprepared to serve people
with disabilities. Data from both the Latin America–wide and Brazilian studies show
there is a strong demand to train human resources such as mediators, educators and
science communicators in how to serve people with disabilities and also for managers,
directors, curators and scientists to learn how to propose initiatives tailored to people
with disabilities.
322 L. Massarani and J. N. Rocha

At the same time, more research has been done on accessibility in Brazil over
the past 20 years. In academia, new graduate-level opportunities began emerging in
2000, making room for new lines of investigation in the field. But Brazilian scientific
production specifically dedicated to science communication still needs to expand and
take stronger root. In 2017, we surveyed articles published on the topic of accessibility
at museums and scientific–cultural spaces and on science communication activities
by Brazilian authors and found that only a few articles had been published in this field,
and only more recently (the first published article is from 2006). Our findings also
suggest that a wider range of topics, accessibility strategies and disabilities must be
addressed and that more in-depth research must be done, especially targeting journals
of greater relevance and impact (Norberto Rocha et al. 2017b).

17.7 Final Considerations

Brazil has had science museums for more than 200 years, although the field has
become more robust only in the past 30 years, as reflected in the opening of at least
200 museums, the definition of public policies, and the foundation of the Brazilian
Association of Science Museums and Centers in 2000.
Over the course of their history, Brazilian science museums have seen good times
and bad in the realms of preservation, funding and public policy. This has had much
to do with a historical context in which a changing country with a young democracy
has wavered in its public policies that value culture, education, S&T and science
communication.
Over the past 30 years in particular, new museums have opened for a range of
publics, moving towards the inclusion of diverse populations. Yet, despite this gradual
shift and the increasing efforts to reinforce inclusion, many people are still left out:
those with lower educational levels, those who have not had the chance to attend
school, those who live far from large urban centres or where there are no science
museums, those with disabilities, the poor, and those who do not feel socially included
in this universe.
A decade of public policies aimed at social inclusion and at the development
and communication of S&T, driven first by the ministry of science and then, on a
smaller scale, by state governments, showed how the science museum sector can
be stimulated. However, the withdrawal of those policies had a fast, deep impact in
the form of programme discontinuity, a lack of conservation and preservation, the
interruption of research and other studies, lay-offs and even definitive closings, with
buildings and collections being handed over to others and memory being destroyed.
Years of hard work are rapidly being undone, while we know what a slow process
it is to build the sector up. For this reason, it is vital to sustain policies on stable,
long-term foundations.
17 Science Museums: The Brazilian Case 323

References

ABCMC (Associação Brasileira de Centros e Museus de Ciência) (2009) Guia de Centros e Museus
de Ciências do Brasil 2009. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Associação Brasileira de Centros e Museus de
Ciência (ABCMC); Casa da Ciência/UFRJ; Museu da Vida/Fiocruz
Almeida C, Brito F, Ferreira R, Massarani L, Amorim L (2015) Centros e Museus de Ciência do
Brasil. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: ABCMC; Casa da Ciência/UFRJ; Museu da Vida/Fiocruz
Botelho L, Porciúncula K (2018) Os desafios para a produção de indicadores sobre pessoa com
deficiência – ontem, hoje e amanhã. In: Simões A, Athias L, Botelho L (Orgs.) Panorama nacional
e internacional da produção de indicadores sociais: grupos populacionais específicos e uso do
tempo. IBGE, Coordenação de População e Indicadores Sociais, Rio de Janeiro
Brasil (2015) Lei n. 13.146, de 6 de julho de 2015. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/ _Ato2015–
2018/2015/Lei/L13146.htm
Carlétti C, Massarani L (2015) Explainers of science centres and museums: a study on these stake-
holders in the mediation between science and the public in Brazil. J Sci Commun 14(2):1–17.
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.14020201
CGEE (Centro de Gestão e Estudos Estratégicos) (2017) A ciência e a tecnologia no olhar dos
brasileiros: percepção pública da C&T no Brasil 2015. https://www.cgee.org.br/documents/
10182/734063/percepcao_web.pdf
CGEE (Centro de Gestão e Estudos Estratégicos) (2019) Percepção pública da C&T no Brasil –
2019. https://www.cgee.org.br/documents/10195/734063/CGEE_resumoexecutivo_Percepcao_
pub_CT.pdf
Ferreira JR (2014) Popularização da ciência e as políticas públicas no Brasil (2003–2012). PhD
dissertation in Biological Sciences (Biophysics), IBCCF, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro,
Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
Hamburguer EW (2001) A popularização da ciência no Brasil. In: Crestana S et al. Educação para
a ciência – curso para treinamento em centros e museus de ciência. Estação Ciência, USP, São
Paulo
Lopes MM (1997) O Brasil descobre a pesquisa científica: os museus de ciências naturais no século
XIX. Hucitec, São Paulo, SP:
Massarani L, Castelfranchi Y, Fagundes V, Moreira I, Mendes, I (2019) O que os jovens
brasileiros pensam da CT&I? Resumo executivo. Rio de Janeiro, 2019. http://www.coc.fiocru
z.br/ images/PDF/Resumo%20executivo%20survey%20jovens_FINAL.pdf.
Massarani L, Moreira I (2016) Science communication in Brazil: A historical review and consid-
erations about the current situation. An Acad Bras Ciênc 88(3):1577–1595. https://doi.org/10.
1590/0001-3765201620150338
Moreira I (2006) A inclusão social e a popularização da ciência e tecnologia no Brasil. Inclusão
Social 1(2):11–16
Moreira IC, Massarani L, Aranha J (2008) Roquette-Pinto e a divulgação científica. In: Lima NT,
Sá DM. Antropologia Brasiliana – Ciência e educação na obra de Edgar Roquette-Pinto. Editora
UFMG / Editora Fiocruz, Belo Horizonte and Rio de Janeiro
Norberto Rocha J, Marandino M (2017) Mobile science museums and centres and their history in
the public communication of science. JCOM 16(03):A04. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.16030204
Rocha JN, Gonçalves J, Cordioli L, Ferreira F (2017a) Accesibilidad en museos, espacios científico-
culturales y acciones de divulgación científica en Brasil. In: Massarani L et al. (eds). Aproxima-
ciones a la investigación en divulgación de la ciencia en América Latina a partir de sus artículos
académicos. Fiocruz/COC, Rio de Janeiro, RJ
Rocha JN, Massarani L, Gonçalves J, Ferreira F, Abreu WVD, Molenzani A, Inacio LGB (2017b)
Guia de Museus e Centros de Ciências Acessíveis da América Latina e do Caribe (1st edition).
Museu da Vida/ Fiocruz; RedPOP. Rio de Janeiro, RJ.
Rocha JN, Massarani L, Abreu WVD, Inacio LGB, Molenzani AO (2020) Investigating accessibility
in Latin American science museums and centers. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 92(1).
https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202020191156
 324 L. Massarani and J. N. Rocha

OMCC (2006) Pesquisa Piloto Perfil-Opinião 2005. Onze Museus e seus visitantes. Rio de Janeiro
e Niterói. Museu da Vida/Fiocruz, Rio de Janeiro, RJ
OMCC (2008) Pesquisa Perfil-Opinião 2006–2007. Museus e visitantes de São Paulo. Museu da
Vida/Fiocruz, Rio de Janeiro, RJ
Barba MDLP, Castillo JPGD, Massarani L (2019) Public engagement in science: mapping out
and understanding the practice of science communication in Latin America. Anais da Academia
Brasileira de Ciências 91(1). doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201920171000
Pereira MRN (2010) Entre Dimensões e funções educativas: A trajetória da 5ª Seção de Assistência
ao Ensino de História Natural do Museu Nacional. Master’s thesis in Museology and Heritage,
Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Museu de Astronomia e Ciências Afins, Rio
de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
Reis J (1984) Museus de história da ciência. Ciência e Cultura 36(8):1370–1379
Steffani MH, Vieira F (2014) Planetários. In: Matsuura O, História da Astronomia no Brasil (vol. 2).
MAST/MCTI, CEPE Editora e Secretaria de Ciência e Tecnologia de Pernambuco, Recife, PE.
Trigueiros F (1958) Museu e Educação. Irmãos Pongetti, Rio de Janeiro
UN (2006) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). https://www.un.org/dev
elopment/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html
UNICEF (2017) Cenário da exclusão escolar no Brasil. UNICEF, São Paulo
UNICEF (2018) Pobreza na Infância e na Adolescência. UNICEF, São Paulo
Venâncio Filho A (1995) Francisco Venâncio Filho: Um educador brasileiro 1894–1994. Nova
Fronteira, Rio de Janeiro, RJ
Xavier DW (2012) Museus em movimento. uma reflexão acerca de experiências museológicas
itinerantes no marco da nova museologia. Master’s thesis in Museology. Universidade Lusófona
de Humanidades e Tecnologias, Lisbon, Portugal

Luisa Massarani is a Brazilian science communicator who carries out both practical and research
activities in the field. She is the coordinator of the National Brazilian Institute of Public Communi-
cation of Science and Technology, the Master in Science Communication at the House of Oswaldo
Cruz/Fiocruz (Brazil) and for Latin American SciDev.Net. She is a recipient of the Mercosur
Award for Science and Technology (2014), the Brazilian Award for Science Communication
(2016) and the Literature Jabuti Award (2017).

Jessica Norberto Rocha is a Brazilian science communicator at Cecierj Foundation (Science

Centre and Distance Higher Education of the State of Rio de Janeiro) and Faperj Young Scien-
tist of the State of Rio de Janeiro. She is a researcher of the National Brazilian Institute of Public
Communication of Science and Technology and CYTED Musa Iberoamericana: Iberoamerican
Network of Science Museums and Centres. She is also a professor of the master’s degree in the
communication of science, technology, and health at Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz) and a
Fulbright Visiting Scholar grantee.

View publication stats