MPs report on UK's Royal Society

A report released today by the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology accepts that the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering offer, on the whole, good value for public money but takes issue with a number of their practices. The MPs urge greater transparency in the learned societies' selection procedures and argue for more inclusivity of ethnic minorities as well as a review to ensure awards are "family friendly" and so attractive to women. The Royal Society, in particular, argue the MPs, needs to monitor the ethnic origin of its Fellows and should consult more with other learned societies in areas where it lacks expertise. Both, say the MPs, must guard against charges of elitism. While welcoming the report and questions it raises, Lord May, president of the Royal Society, finds that the findings are "a little curious" with factual errors, misconceptions and inconsistencies. The committee's broad remit was to discover whether the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering provide good value for money and whether there is a case that other learned societies should receive government funds. They concluded that others do have a case and recommended that government establish a fund to which all learned societies could apply. Currently, says the report, funding is haphazard and disproportionately applied. It is not entirely clear from the report what this means in practice. Ian Gibson, chair of the committee, says the idea is that the money allocated to the RS and RAE (about £30 million in 2001–02) should go into a pot and could be bid for by all learned societies including the RS and RAE. In evidence, however, quite a lot of societies — particularly professional bodies such as the Institute of Physics — said they would rather have their independence than the money.Though ostensibly an inquiry into all learned societies, throughout the text, it seems to be the Royal Society that was at the centre of the committee's thoughts. Not surprising, perhaps, because the Royal Society will receive £28.745 million in 2002–03 from the public purse. By contrast the Royal Academy of Engineering will receive only one fifth of that and other learned societies receive benefits in kind (such as free accommodation for the Royal Society of Chemistry) or one-off grants.Of the money the Royal Society receives from the public purse, roughly 85% will be disbursed as research grants and fellowships. The remainder is spent on science communication and education, rent and administration.To supplement its income, the Committee says that the Royal Society should seek private funding. May's response is, "We have £10 million plus per year from foundations and industry. It's a little odd for the committee to tell us we should do what we are already doing, but we're happy to hear any ideas about who else we should approach."The committee paid particular attention to whether women and ethnic minorities are appropriately represented among the fellows, whether the Royal Society distributes its university research fellowships in a fair way geographically, whether the Society recognises new disciplines and whether its peer review processes are transparent.After hearing evidence, the committee concluded that the number of women fellows is roughly what would be expected given the numbers in senior posts in universities (The committee itself has only one woman MP out of a membership of 11) and that no conclusions can be drawn about the Society's attitude to ethnic minorities given that they are not represented in senior academic positions.While acknowledging that the Royal Society does monitor the ethnicity of staff and recipients of awards and fellowships, the committee points out that they do not monitor the ethnicity of their Fellows, and they seem to be confusing ethnicity with nationality. "That was me," says May, "it was something I said. We tend to think of the Fellows as people first. And then when I was asked, I said we did have Indian Fellows, meaning from India. We haven't monitored the ethnicity of Fellows, but we will, though I could provoke hostility among scientists by asking." Other criticisms of the Society are that its university fellowships should be more widely distributed beyond the golden triangle of Oxford, London and Cambridge, that newer disciplines, for example, computing, are not recognised by the election of Fellows and that the Society needs to be more transparent in its review processes.May argues there are misconceptions behind each of these. "The fellowships," he says, "are made to individuals, they can go where they want. When they move, the money goes with them. The issue is really that in any country a disproportionate amount of funds accrues to certain elite (in the sense that Manchester United is elite) institutions. A good reputation attracts good people."On the subject of newer disciplines, he argues that the committee is confusing the amount of water in the bath with the rate that water flows in. "Fellows are elected for life. So if you look at all fellows there is a low percentage with a computing background, but if you look at the numbers elected in recent years, the percentage — about 7% — is roughly what the British Computer Society say we should have."And on the question of transparency he points out that the Society's web site carries details of committees and peer review processes.Gibson, who is much more outspoken than his committee about what he argues is the "old boy network mentality" of the Royal Society says he accepts May is open to change, but asks how soon, and he considers that May is too defensive of the Society. One area, however, where it seems the two may be in agreement is on the question of what should happen to a committee set up by the Royal Society, Royal Institution and British Association to promote science communication in the UK. Known as Copus, the body is located at the Royal Society and receives its funding from the Office of Science and Technology via the Society. This situation has in recent months led to a lot of tension. The committee says Copus should become independent from the Society, a view that May accepts, if that is what Copus wants.

MPs report on UK's Royal Society

MPs say Royal Society offers good value but must be more transparent and guard against elitism

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of