An exhibit about cardiology at a science museum is an elaborate form of health communication, with messaging happening across text, pictures, models, and videos. This qualitative case study uses concepts of speech act sequencing and interpellation to explain a series of multimodal exhibits about cardiovascular health. Health exhibits are described as verbal and audiovisual arguments combining assertions of information; directives to change behavior, and designations of risk candidacy-or sequences of assertive, directive, and declarative speech acts. Visitors are targeted as heart disease candidates according to their risk factors, such as hypertension, overweight, and inactivity. Communication research focused on health exhibits is rare, and this article presents a new way of looking at them that contributes to the current discussions about controlling language. Implications for health communication scholars and multimedia message designers are explored.

A pregnancy exhibit at a science museum is an opportunity to research how medical advice is communicated and interpreted. This paper is about the Beginning of Life area of an exhibition called The Amazing You at the Tampa Museum of Science and Industry, where exhibits are prescriptive as well as descriptive. Expectant women are urged to deliver full-term, normal birthweight babies, by behaving according to prescribed medical norms. This study provides ethnographic descriptions of the exhibits, as well as insights from museum visitors who were interviewed. The exhibits, which emphasize fetal rights and maternal duties, are interpreted and critiqued by women visitors. As the exhibits climb towards greater realism (from euphemistic computer graphics to actual fetal specimens) visitors encounter assertions of fact that precede sometimes tacit directives to undergo a medicalized pregnancy. Exhibits are viewed from the perspective of speech act theory, presenting a new approach to health communication research. I argue that this science center exhibit tells people what to do, in addition to passing on information.

A science museum exhibition about human health contains an exhibit that minimizes health impacts of air pollution. Relevant details, such as the full range of health risks; fossil fuel combustion; air quality statutes (and the local electrical utility's violations of these statues), are omitted, while end users of electricity are blamed. The exhibit accomplishes this, not through outright falsification, but through selected “alternative facts” that change the focus and imply misleading alternate explanations. Using two classical rhetorical concepts (the practical syllogism and the enthymeme) allows for the surfacing of missing evidence and unstated directives underlying multimodal rhetoric. By stating multimedia arguments syllogistically, a technique is proposed for revealing hidden political subtexts from beneath a putatively disinterested presentation of facts. The piece should be of interest to researchers, message designers, and policymakers interested in the rhetoric of science, ecology, health, and museums.

No abstract

In November 2020, I spoke with Alan Blum, MD, scholar, collector, curator, exhibitor, activist, and director of the University of Alabama Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society (CSTS). He has been creating tobacco-themed exhibitions since the 1980s—in brick-and-mortar as well as digital settings—based on a prodigious collection of tobacco-related artifacts. Before joining CSTS, as founder of Doctors Ought to Care, a national organization of concerned and outspoken physicians, Blum satirized and protested at tobacco industry–sponsored events. In addition to being an avid museumgoer, he closely follows the tobacco industry’s sponsorship of museums and exhibitions. This article contains excerpts from our interview, with Blum addressing the dynamism of tobacco marketing, the irony of CSTS exhibitions, his recollections of past exhibitions, and what he regards as the complicity of other industries and professions. Be advised that the exhibitions Blum curates and the views he expresses “may be hazardous to people’s preconceptions.”