Museums may be increasingly asserting the unique value of their traditional collections-based research. But their directors appear keenly aware that museum research can no longer remain an end in itself, and must be increasingly geared to answering questions of contemporary relevance — in particular about the management of the environment and biodiversity.

Two manifestations of this are a new emphasis on multidisciplinary research, and greater willingness to collaborate with external researchers. “The future of all natural history museums will depend on the strategic alliances we are able to build with other organizations to increase our reach and broaden our impact,” says Peter Crane, director of the Field Museum in Chicago. “We will need to develop an institutional culture that looks outwards rather than inwards.”

The Field Museum is bringing together scientists from different departments around shared facilities, for example in molecular biology. Similar proposals are contained in reforms submitted to the French government by Henry de Lumley, director of the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris. The museum's 26 laboratories would be regrouped in ‘institutes’ built around particular research themes and collections — such as ecology and the management of biodiversity — with each sharing equipment and facilities.

At the Natural History Museum in London, reforms to encourage staff to seek research collaboration, both within the museum and in the wider community, have been under way for a decade (see opposite). Competition for external grants, for example, has become an important factor in internal promotion.

The museum's research was previously too “cut off” from the outside world, argues Neil Chalmers, the museum's director. He says he felt when he took over in 1989 that there was a need to have the museum's unique research product — taxonomy — better appreciated outside the museum.

Paul Henderson, the museum's director of science, sees the forging of external alliances as crucial to the institution's future. He would like to see a graduate school developed between the museum and the University of London, for example, in much the same way as the American Museum of National History in New York has long had a productive link with Columbia University.

More broadly, managers at the London museum increasingly see its collection of 68 million specimens as a sort of collateral for attracting funds and staff for studies in such areas as biodiversity, conservation, agriculture, waste management, water treatment, and mineral exploitation.

Promoting the value of its collections for addressing contemporary problems, such as in biodiversity and the environment, has become the focus of the museum's development strategy. Chalmers defends himself against accusations that this amounts to chasing fashion at the expense of long-term interests by arguing that it reinforces the relevance of the collections in the eyes of funders.

A similar pragmatism now permeates many regional natural history museums, particularly in the United States. The Field Museum, for example, has become heavily involved in local issues, bringing together more than 40 state and local agencies and associations to form a conservation network known as the Chicago Wilderness Initiative.

“The funding opportunities are local,” says Edward Theriot, director of the Texas Memorial Museum in Austin, arguing that the central question facing all museums is one of “relevance”. Although scientific meetings may be preoccupied with global biodiversity, the museum is having to focus its biodiversity efforts on problems relevant to Texas, he says.

Similarly, Michael Hager, director of the San Diego Museum of Natural History, says the museum has completely refocused its activities over the past decade from global issues to biodiversity and environmental issues in California and Mexico. “The world kind of opened up for us, with funding becoming readily available,” says Hager, adding that ten years ago the museum was close to closing its doors.