tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5317052042177627905.post8242730997262348662..comments2008-02-16T17:58:23.577-05:00Paul Orsellihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05111591384018210698noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5317052042177627905.post-28047724523803645102008-02-16T17:58:00.000-05:002008-02-16T17:58:00.000-05:00Excellent point about playgrounds, Susie.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, the spectre of "liability" seems to hang over every interesting playground or exhibit project.<BR/><BR/>Although there are always refreshing counter-examples like The City Museum in St. Louis. I remember getting a little freaked out (in a good way) while crawling through some of the tunnels in their exhibit galleries!Paul Orsellihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05111591384018210698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5317052042177627905.post-23054833728977613282008-02-16T17:45:00.000-05:002008-02-16T17:45:00.000-05:00Hi Paul - <BR/><BR/>Not a science exhibit example . . . but the same thing seems to have happened to playgrounds. Susan Solomon has argued in her excellent book, American Playgrounds, that in the US playgrounds have become so hyper-safe that children are not stimulated by them. And in response, they try even more outlandish things, making the playgrounds actually less safe. In contrast, she claims, playgrounds that have elements of danger end up being safer because children are encouraged to explore and take small risks. That stimulation keeps them ultimately out of trouble . . . and safer. It is an interesting theory, and judging from the dullness of most playgrounds I see, I think she may be on to something.<BR/><BR/>So are we sacrificing exploration, risks, and discovery in order to keep our kids safe? And by doing so, are putting them at greater risk of harm? Interesting question.Susie Wilkening, Reach Advisorshttp://reachadvisors.typepad.com/noreply@blogger.com