Particularly as a child who doesn't have such a passionate parent as yourself to explain all the equipment.
As such it's hard for people like us to have an objective opinion because it's always framed through our experiences of loving science: 'It worked for us, why change it?'
The huge risk of course is misunderstanding. Every autodidact gets hit by that. So the didactic panels are necessary, the pathways, but the sheer amount of tidying up and simplifying is (badly) stunning: they took shitloads of materials off display, to contextualise what's left better (in their eyes)
Contrast with the BM. Last visit: "do you want to hold a real Celtic bronze axehead" from an archeologist on the floor. (Detectorists probably helped motivate them to socialise the stacks of finds which arent holotypes) They're bloody heavy, amazing things. Beautifully crafted Lovely chap, spoke about the casting techniques, preserving the binding in surrounding soil when removing, all kinds of stuff. I think the BM and Sir John Soanes house have kept the spirit alive, the Science Museum hasn't.
The museum wrote back asking me to cease and desist. So I did, and the trend continues. The buggers also lost a family donation in their "raiders of the lost ark" warehouse. (Early computing parts from imperial college, possibly the 5th computer in britain) they do have an archive problem. And, a lot of science trash is kind of boring. Their real live radioactive stuff, the gear used by Watson & Crick, that's not boring.
Arts et Metier in Paris is better. Lavoisiers entire gas research rig, bits of Fred Juliot-Curie's cavity accelerator magnet, the original jacquard loom, a room of 200 bizarre clockwork cog and wheel mechanisms.
Or the Rutter museum in Philadelphia, or the Teylers museum in Haarlem: lethal scale Leyden jar and van de graaf generator.
The real shit is much better than didactic panels and QR codes. I'm glad the deltic loco and V2 rocket are still on display in London, and Babbage bits and pieces, and the calculator made from meccano.