The California Science Center is an educational institution in Exposition Park, Los Angeles, run under the auspices of the State and Consumer Services Agency. The center is overseen by a public-private partnership: a nine-member board of directors administers the California Science Center, and a not-for-profit foundation supports the exhibits and programs. The Science Center itself is one large scientific museum, but the complex includes other public buildings, permanent exhibitions, theaters and displays, as well as the California African American Museum and the Office of Exposition Park Management. The Science Center and the museums and exhibits are open to the public and the Center conducts educational programs that focus on technology, math, and science. The Office of Exposition Park Management coordinates with all agencies that use the park and carries on day-to-day operations. 

The California Science Center sits on land in Los Angeles known today as Exposition Park, but in 1872 the site was privately owned by James N. Thompson. He sold it to a private corporation called the Southern District Agricultural Society and it was renamed Agricultural Park. A clubhouse, stables and corral were built, and livestock shows, farm equipment displays and horse races were major activities.

The state Legislature included the site among the agricultural districts it formed in 1880 and held a fair, notable for the attendance of President Rutherford B. Hayes. The state purchased the land in 1885, but a shortage of funds required that it lease sections of the park to private concessionaires whose unsavory racing and entertainment choices were not family-friendly.

A 10-year battle to oust the concessionaires was won in 1909, the site’s name was changed to Exposition Park the next year and construction began on the State Exposition Building, which when completed showcased agricultural and industrial products from throughout the state.

After World War II, the building was remodeled and became the California Museum of Science and Industry in 1951. Since the 1950s, the museum was partially supported by the private California Museum Foundation, a group of powerful state business leaders that raised millions of dollars for it, and participated in how it was run.

The foundation helped take the museum in a new direction, shifting its emphasis from agriculture to industry. The museum hired Don M. Muchmore in 1957 as executive director and his prodigious fundraising greatly enlarged the scope of its activities. An aerospace hall and an economics arcade were added, and math and science displays were updated, allowing children to interact with the teaching devices.

Muchmore, a former executive with California Federal Savings & Loan, left the museum in 1962 to become vice chancellor of  California State Colleges. He came back in 1969 for a stint and again in 1982 as the 1984 summer Olympics in Los Angeles approached. Muchmore returned as executive director of the museum but also held a top position with the foundation. They raised $41 million to revamp the museum before the games began.

But during Muchmore’s second tour of duty, conflicts between the foundation and state political leaders began to surface. The media reported complaints from employees who described Muchmore as abrasive and claimed he verbally abused and harassed them, as well as his clashes with the citizens advisory committee of the Community Redevelopment Agency.

In 1983, he used state police personnel to replace his entire security staff, who looked in vain for someone to save their jobs until Assemblywoman Maxine Waters took up their cause. “I absolutely forced the issue,” Waters said, “and fought it all the way through to the governor's desk and was able to retain those security officers. It was a real struggle. Muchmore fought it every inch of the way.” The compromise, an agreement to train the current security staff to qualify as state police, did not end the conflict.

A 1986 audit of the private foundation found film productions companies were given permission to film on state property in exchange for donations. The audit also said Muchmore exaggerated museum attendance and allowed excessive parking fees but more importantly questioned whether he could legally hold the public museum position and receive compensation from the a private source, the foundation, for work performed within his official capacities..

The Legislature resolved the conflict by passing a law authorizing his dual responsibilities. But tension continued between the Legislature and the foundation, which counted among its 23-member executive committee retired Unocal Chairman Fred L. Hartley, retired California Savings & Loan Chairman Howard Edgerton and retired Ticor Chairman Ernest L. Loebbecke. David Laventhol, president of Los Angeles Times parent Times Mirror Corporation, was among 63 other trustees. 

Plans to transform the museum into a state-of-the-art science education facility began in 1987 and kicked off with the construction of the Howard F. Ahmanson Building, which opened in 1998. The Ahmanson Building replaced the old museum, but kept its façade intact. An IMAX theater and the Science Plaza were opened as well.

Muchmore announced in June 1988 that he was giving up his post with the museum but would continue for 12-18 months as executive vice president of the foundation. Jeffrey N. Rudolph, the museum’s deputy director, succeeded Muchmore (and would remain at the helm through its 10-year transition to science center and beyond). A year later, the Legislature took steps to assert its control over the science center by passing a law terminating the foundation’s contract with the center, banning the use of state funds for foundation operating costs and ordering a review of the state-foundation relationship.

“They (state officials) are not thinking of the people of California,” said Carolyn Ahmanson, whose late husband helped established the foundation and had a museum building named after him. “They have paralyzed the foundation.”

Assemblywoman Waters, who chaired the subcommittee that oversaw the science center, said she supported the foundation, but it “should know that it does not have a permanent home where it can do anything it wants to do.”

The first phase of the California Science Museum was completed in February 1998 and included: Creative World, World of Life, an IMAX Theater and the Science Plaza.   

A 1999 report by the State Auditor concluded the foundation’s influence had not waned and “although the State is the science center’s primary benefactor, it relinquished governance of the science center to the foundation. Specifically, while the State has historically controlled science center policy, management, and operations, these functions are now primarily under foundation direction.  Further, we noted that state-appointed executives, who also serve the foundation in some capacity, are not properly protecting the State’s interests in the science center and Exposition Park.”  

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s California Performance Review in 2004 recommended that the state should eliminate general fund support for the science center and shift funding to the foundation and admission fees. But the bulk of its funding continued to come from the general fund.

Changes at the museum site continued when Phase II of the Grand Plan kicked in, renovating the SKETCH Foundation Gallery which housed air and space exhibits. In 2004 two new buildings opened: the Wallis Annenberg Building for Science Learning and Innovation, and the Science Center School. The Wallis Annenberg Building with its labs and classrooms makes science learning available to the entire community. The Science Center School is a Los Angeles Unified School District elementary school built in partnership with the Science Center. The 2010 opening of the Ecosystems exhibition wing of the Ahmanson Building brings Phase II to near-closure.

Phase III will bring a project named Worlds Beyond, and at its completion the California Science Center will be the largest science center in the western U.S. In 2011, the California Science Center was one of four sites chosen by NASA to permanently display Endeavor, one of the Space Shuttle Orbiters.

Science Center History (California Science Center website)

The Story of the California Museum of Science and Industry (University of Southern California)

California Museum of Science and Industry 1951-1996 (Whimsical Will)

Muchmore Matches His Achievements with Conflicts (by Beth Ann Krier, Los Angeles Times)

State Report Hits Museum of Science and Industry (by Carl Ingram, Los Angeles Times)

Science Museum Director Muchmore Resigns Post (by John Kendall, Los Angeles Times)

Termination of Private Foundation's Contract at Museum of Science and Industry Sparks Turmoil (by Terry Pristin, Los Angeles Times)

California Science Center: The State Has Relinquished Control to the Foundation and Poorly Protected Its Interests (State Auditor) (pdf)

California Science Center: It Does Not Ensure Fair and Equitable Treatment of Employees, Thus Exposing the State to Risk (State Auditor) (pdf)

Eliminate General Fund Support for the California Science Center (California Performance Review)

The California Science Center can refer to one large scientific museum, but collectively it includes other public buildings, a school, permanent exhibits, theaters, and displays, as well as the California African American Museum and the Office of Exposition Park Management. All of these occupy part of the 160-acre Exposition Park in Los Angeles. (Also in Exposition Park, but not part of the California Science Center, are the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and Sports Arena, the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, a rose garden, and the EXPO Center sports facility.)

The Science Center treats visitors to educational exhibits and programs developed by the Center. Exhibits focus on hands-on science and math experiments and displays, such as Ecosystems, a new wing displaying environments from all over the globe.

Other buildings that are part of the California Science Center:

·    The 3D IMAX Theater shows documentaries and films with nature or science themes.

·    The Science Center School is part of the Los Angeles Unified School District, a charter school for students in kindergarten through fifth grade.

·    The SKETCH Foundation Gallery, containing space capsules and other artifacts in its Air and Space Exhibits.

·    The Wallis Annenberg Building, which houses The Big Lab, a huge open-air facility, as well as thematic classrooms, enclosed labs, prep rooms, a library, and more.

Exhibits and educational projects for the Science Center receive funding from the California Science Center Foundation, a non-for-profit entity that partners with the state in running the California Science Center. The foundation also provides funds for capital outlay projects.

The California African American Museum, or CAAM, is a museum of history, not science, but it is included in the California Science Center. Established in 1984, CAAM presents both permanent and changing exhibits that use film, art, lectures, archives, workshops and other educational methods to show the contributions, history, and culture of African Americans. A seven-member board of governor-appointed directors administers CAAM and a dedicated foundation titled Friends contributes funds.

The last component of the California Science Center is the Office of Exposition Park Management (OEPM). OEPM handles public safety, operations, management, park maintenance and parking services for Exposition Park. It also coordinates and supervises events within the park, facilitating communication between state, city, and county officials, the local community, and the public at large.

The Science Center is governed by a nine-member board of directors appointed by the governor for four-year terms. A private, not-for-profit organization, the California Science Center Foundation, jointly runs the Science Center with the state, raising and contributing millions of dollars to support education, exhibits, and capital projects. The Foundation board is made up of 85 trustees.

About Us (California Science Center website)

3-Year Budget (pdf)

American Freedom Alliance v. California Science Center Foundation (Declaration of Jeffrey N. Rudolph)

Of the $29.87 million projected budget for the California Science Center in FY 2012-2013, most of the money, $21.8 million, will go toward education. Exposition Park Management gets $5.7 million while the California African American Museum gets $2.4 million. Broken down by category, salaries and benefits for personnel cost $13.2 million, operating expenses and equipment cost $2.7 million.

The bulk of the money, $20.3 million, comes from the state’s General Fund. The Exposition Park Improvement Fund contributes $7.7 million, and reimbursements account for $1.9 million. The Exposition Park Improvement Fund draws money from parking lot revenues and parking violations and the rental of state property at Exposition Park.

The private part of this private-public partnership, the not-for-profit California Science Center Foundation, provides $16.7 million in operating revenue, dispersed through several channels. Exhibits, educational programs, and guest services get $8.7 million, the IMAX Theater and store get $3.4 million, membership development accounts for $1.3 million, and administration for $1.7 million. The production of events, marketing, communications, and publications together will cost less than $1.3 million.

3-Year Budget (pdf)

Possible Sale of State Land Creates Squabbling, but No Deal Yet

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, facing a budget crisis in 2010, offered to sell the land beneath Los Angeles’ Coliseum and Sports Arena and several parking lots in Exposition Park. The University of Southern California, which sits just north of the park, was interested. The university needed the parking space. Local residents and some Los Angeles City Council members were skeptical. The Exposition Park board of directors as well as the California Science Center board studied the proposal, along with the Coliseum Commission—which included some city council members. Sound like too many cooks in the kitchen?

Perhaps it was. By February 2012, negotiations were not going well. Robert L. Stein, chair of the Science Center Board, told the interim general manager of the Coliseum Commission, John Sandbrook, that his board had gotten no input on the lease terms. According to the Los Angeles Times, Stein said “We have been specifically excluded from any negotiations.”

The Coliseum Commission had voted in September 2011 to start lease negotiations. “But the vote was taken in closed session. And the commission was secretive about the USC talks in several subsequent meetings,” reported the Times. “The Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission came under fire from state officials Wednesday for a lack of transparency, then was forced to cancel its monthly meeting halfway into the session after officials acknowledged the venue had failed to publicly post the agenda as required by law.” City Councilman Bernard Parks, also on the commission, had called for Sandbrook’s firing in the past, and referred to his mistake in not posting the agenda as  “inexcusable” and “one more embarrassment.”

Where does that leave the land sale? Within a week, Governor Jerry Brown cancelled his predecessor’s proposed sale of 11 state buildings, saying “This is not the best time to be selling real estate.” Tenants of other state lands that have faced possible sale—including the boards of the Science Center and Exposition Park, the Coliseum Commission, USC, and other concerned parties—are waiting to see if the governor will cancel other land sales.

Exposition Park/California Science Center Board Puts Brakes on USC Deal to Buy Coliseum and Sports Arena Land from State (Los Angeles Daily News)

Coliseum Commission Takes Heat over Transparency, Halts Meeting (by Rong-Gong Lin II and Paul Pringle, Los Angeles Times)

Jerry Brown to Cancel Sale of 11 California Government Buildings (by Shane Goldmacher and Evan Halper, Los Angeles Times)

Intelligent Design Film Cancelled

On October 1, 2009, the American Freedom Alliance (AFA) announced that the Los Angeles premier of a “new science documentary” called Darwin’s Dilemma would take place a few weeks later at the IMAX theater in the California Science Center. The film screening would be followed by a panel discussion featuring the film’s director and two authors who had written about intelligent design—the theory that life could not arise by chance, but only through the intervention of an intelligent entity.

The press release about the event, not shown to Science Center executives before being distributed, exaggerated a relationship between the Science Center and the Smithsonian Institution by stating in its first paragraph that “the Smithsonian Institution’s west coast affiliate premiers Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record, a new intelligent design film which challenges Darwinian evolution.” A representative of the Smithsonian called to express concern over the mischaracterization of its relationship with the Science Center. Because of the misleading statement, and because AFA distributed the press release to the public without Science Center approval, and because other wording “falsely implied that the Foundation or the Science Center were sponsors of the AFA’s event,” CEO Jeffrey Rudolph, acting in his capacity as president of the Science Center Foundation, canceled the event.

The AFA quickly filed suit alleging, according to the Los Angeles Times, “that the state-owned center improperly bowed to pressure from the Smithsonian Institution, as well as e-mailed complaints from USC professors and others. It [the AFA] contends that the center violated both the 1^st Amendment and a contract to rent the museum’s Imax Theater.”

A settlement was reached in July 2011. The Science Center’s insurer paid AFA $100,000 and the Science Center Foundation paid AFA $10,000 to “avoid the expense of further litigation.” In addition, Science Center officials agreed to invite the AFA to show the film, and the AFA agreed to turn down the offer—“an unusual provision,” as the Los Angeles Times said.

While neither side admitted fault or liability, the Science Center said in a statement that “the evidence demonstrated that the Foundation was right.” The Science Center also stated, “it was uncovered that the AFA and the Discovery Institute actually had been secretly coordinating the publicity efforts and were intentionally trying to make the publicity that led to the cancellation as provocative and controversial as possible.”

“This cancellation was never about the content of the program, as indicated by the fact that the Foundation was willing to have the event in the first place. It was about the false and misleading press release that the Discovery Institute and AFA issued.”

Here’s how the film’s supporters reported the settlement: “The state-run California Science Center (SCS) has paid $110,000 to settle a lawsuit . . . for violating AFA’s First Amendment free speech rights to advocate intelligent design (ID). As part of the settlement, the CSC has also invited AFA to present the ID event it previously cancelled.” In the next paragraph, the post related how the film screening was cancelled “when CSC learned the film would portray ID favorably.” One of the lawyers calls the settlement “a vindication for ID.”

Clearly, the settlement did not restrain either side from talking about the issue.

Los Angeles Premier of Darwin’s Dilemma at California Science Center on Oct. 25 (by John G. West, Evolution News and Views)

Declaration of Jeffrey N. Rudolph (Superior Court, Los Angeles, CA)

California Science Center is Sued for Canceling a Film Promoting Intelligent Design (by Mike Boehm, Los Angles Times)

Lawsuit Against Science Center Settled (National Center for Science Education)

California Science Center Foundation’s Statement Regarding Resolution of Legal Dispute with AFA (gnom.es national newswire service)

California Science Center Pays $110,000 to Settle Intelligent Design Discrimination Lawsuit (Evolution News and Views)

California Science Center to Pay $110,000 Settlement Over Intelligent Design Film (by Sara Reardon, Science)

Acclaim for “Body Worlds” Exhibit Isn’t Universal 

Since its debut in 1995, “Body Worlds” exhibits have drawn 200 million visitors worldwide. All three installments of the touring show, that features preserved human corpses, have appeared at the Science Center, including the 2005 show that attracted sellout crowds and impelled the museum to stay open around the clock to accommodate them.

But the exhibits are not universally beloved. “Body Worlds 3 & the Story of the Heart” in 2008 got under some people’s skin with displays of the circulatory system—healthy hearts and those not so healthy, and cobwebs of red plastinated veins and arteries entwined about their transparent sliced and diced subjects. The process of plastination, invented in 1977 by anatomist and physician Gunther von Hagens at the University of Heidelberg in Germany, replaces body fluids and fats with plastic to prevent decay.

Although it was originally developed with applications for medical school in mind, Von Hagens decided to use it for exhibitions. Its impact is undeniable.

“When you see a lung that's been impacted by lung cancer and know it's real, that means a lot more than seeing a model or a picture,” Science Center President Jeffrey Rudolph said in 2008. “I've never seen another exhibit that so impacts people.”

Its critics agree. Some of them consider it disrespectful to display corpses, some express religious objections and some think it sensationalizes death. “I'm sorry, not everybody has the mentality of a medical student who is there to learn about the body,” said Sarah Redpath, creator of a website critical of the exhibit. “The only thing that's keeping a freezer full of arms at a medical school being acceptable and a freezer full of arms inside Jeffrey Dahmer's trailer not acceptable are ethics and standards and intent.”

Others wonder if the bodies are all legitimate, consenting donors despite assurances from Von Hagens, who says he has consent forms from all his specimens. The Science Center sent an adviser to Germany, who matched all the donor consent forms with death certificates, and conducted an ethical review before the 2004 exhibit opened.

Fans of  Body Worlds call it an unparalleled learning experience, and, again, the critics agree. “I have no doubt that there are things to learn, but there are certain things I don't need to learn from,” Redpath said. “I could learn from gutting and stuffing an animal, but it's not something I would want to do.” 

The Science Center maintains the 50-foot-tall woman, Tess, in all her anatomically correct glory at the permanent BodyWorks exhibit in its second-floor presentation, World of Life.   

Popular “Body Worlds” Exhibit Returns (by Melissa Heckscher, The Daily Breeze)

Body Worlds Bizarre Real Human Specimen Exhibit (by Deborah Petersen, Life in the Fast Lane)

Should a Science Center Host “Intelligent Design” Events?

It cost the Science Center’s insurance company and the Foundation $110,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by the producers of Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record, a film about intelligent design, after canceling the movie. Although the suit involved questions of how the movie was promoted by its producers, discussions included whether it was appropriate to be discussing intelligent design in a science center.

No, Intelligent Design (ID) Should Not be Treated as Science

Geologist Steven Newton, interviewed by the Associated Press, criticized both the film Darwin’s Dilemma itself and the idea of showing it at the California Science Center. The movie, he said, was “a distortion of what real scientists think about the Cambrian Period. . . The way the film does this is by showing snippets of real paleontologists next to people who have never published a paper on paleontology talking about creationism.”  Newton’s opinion of the film and venue, summarized by the AP, was that “showing it in a science museum would be like showing a film about the Civil War that credited the South with victory in a history museum.”

“Intelligent design is a science stopper,” said Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. “It stops science in its tracks because you stop looking.” In the same article in Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, written to supplement the Public Broadcasting show Religion and Ethics, professor Ken Miller of Brown University, said, “I think the intelligent design movement is essentially a movement against reason. It’s an argument that embraces ignorance.”

 “Equity, intellectual honesty and scientific integrity do not require the teaching of the religious theories of creation as a differing or alternative point of view to evolution.” This statement, from an issue page of the Anti-Defamation League, is aimed at schools but could easily be applied to a public education facility like the Science Center. “Proponents [of ID] assert that their criticism of evolution is scientific, not religious. But the various aspects of intelligent design theory have not yet been subjected to the normal process of scientific experimentation and debate, nor have they been accepted by the scientific community. No research supporting the claims of intelligent design has ever been published in any recognized, professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Finally, the question of whether there is an intelligent designer is untestable using the methods of science, and therefore is not a scientific claim.”

The Smithsonian Institution, to which the California Science Center is affiliated, agreed: “The scientific community does not recognize ID as a scientific position. Therefore, it is not one side of a scientific debate.”

When the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History put together an exhibit and primer titled What Does It Mean To Be Human? it addressed intelligent design in the introduction.  “Advocates for ID have not been able to show that their claims are genuinely scientific. While the scientific community welcomes new theoretical proposals, these must lead to active research programs that deepen our understanding of nature and that can find confirmation in either laboratory or field observations. Thus far, ID advocates have been unable to do either.

“As an institution of informal public education, the exhibit cannot advocate a religious position. As a matter of public record, a US Federal Court has ruled that ID is not science but instead is a religious viewpoint (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005). For all of these reasons it is inappropriate for ID to be included in a scientific presentation on human origins.”

Lawsuit against Science Center Settled (National Center for Science Education)

Evolution and Intelligent Design (Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, PBS)

Religion in the Science Class? (Anti-Defamation League website)

What Does it Mean to be Human? (Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History)

Yes, ID Deserves Attention As a Valid Theory

“The First Amendment forbids government preference for one viewpoint over another,” said attorney and policy analyst Casey Luskin, discussing the settlement over the cancelled screening of Darwin’s Dilemma.  Luskin called the cancellation “illegal state-sponsored suppression of protected speech.”

Arguing that papers on intelligent design are appearing in peer-reviewed scientific journals—at least 50, by their count—the Center for Science and Culture noted that “ID has already gained the kind of scientific recognition you would expect from a young (and vastly underfunded) but promising scientific field. The scientific progress of ID has won the serious attention of skeptics in the scientific community, who engage in scientific debate with ID and attend private scientific conferences allowing off-the-record discussion with ID proponents.” Many of the 50 papers listed appear in BIO-Complexity, but other publications include the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, The Quarterly Review of Biology, and more.

“The use of phrases like “anti-science” reveals partisan psychology at work,” said Chris Bateman on his blog. “Modern scientists should be sufficiently secure in their beliefs to have discussions on any topic relating to science without it being a cause of cognitive dissonance. . . . Since the scientific community disagrees on so many facts, it is absurd to treat any aspect of modern scientific knowledge as dogma.”

California Science Center Pays $110,000 to Settle Intelligent Design Discrimination Lawsuit (Evolution News and Views)

California Science Center Issues a Press Release Full of Misleading Claims: A Point-by-Point Response (by Casey Luskin, Evolution News and Views)

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) (Discovery Institute)

Don’t Talk About Creationism, Or Else (by Chris Bateman, Only a Game blog)

Don M. Muchmore, 1982 – 1988

William J. McCann,  1970 - 1982

Museum that Grooves with Young Megalopolis (by Maggie Savoy, Los Angeles Times)