When fighting for industrial archaeology, we, again, may stay at the technical level, tracing the adventures of innovation, nature of creativity and issuing technologies.
Only exceptionally, our insight widens to encompass the aesthetic dimension, as that one is not only inextricable of art but also a true inspiration in art, - so much so that certain art movements (let alone programmatic ones like futurist or art that depicted wars, upheavals, revolutions) was unimaginable without technological context (impressionism, cubism, pointillism). Designing the factories of working places is a branch of architecture and design that not only changed our architecture and art but also changed our world. The lack of it was a clear insight into pursuing recklessly, the one and only, - profit.
Therefore, I find it hardly imaginable that a museum consecrated to industrial archaeology can omit the social component of the entire complex matter. Is it hard because it is mal vue, i.e. disregarded by the power holders that we show the existence or the lack of social care for the workers? If they feel strongly about it, it just may be a certain feeling of guilt that a museum serves as a reminder to? Is it a positive lesson, - from the past that they do not want to hear about? Getting out of such an institution a visitor should be not only more knowledgeable, but also able to make own way within the information available, and also capable of creating own opinions. That is a form o freedom and that many would like to discredit by political etiquettes or simple changes of directors.