APPENDIX 28
Memorandum submitted by Dame Bridget Ogilvie
Further to your ongoing enquiry into the Government
Funding of the Scientific Learned Societies, I would like to make
the following points and submit the attached documents as written
evidence:
I have already submitted my resignation notice,
but for completeness I attach it again.[9]
1. The minutes from the last four Copus
Council meetings,** which clearly indicate a consensus about the
way forward for Copus as a strategic focus for science communication,
and a number of areas of work agreed by Council. The ideas presented
in these minutes illustrate a useful role for remodelled Copus
that fills a crucial gap in current science communication activity.
This new and agreed role suggests that the remodelled Copus has
made much further progress on paper than its founding organisations
will give it credit for in public. Their suggestion that the new
Council has little idea of what to do lies uncomfortably with
their previous support for the re-modelling, and with the fact
that these minutes were accepted without comment or dissent in
their presence.
As I have previously made clear, I have no problem
with the current activities that occupy the time of Copus staff—it
is simply that Copus Council does not need to exist for them to
take place, and I can no longer endorse a programme that claims
to have recruited dedicated staff to work on the remodelled Copus,
when in fact, almost all their time is taken up with running previously
existing programmes. The Royal Society makes very clear that in
its view the grant schemes are the most important raison d'etre
of Copus. However, the grants are allocated by a separate committee
of the Royal Society, and do not need the time or expertise of
a further group such as Council in order to function.
2. The issue of how Copus is financed is
an important one, because at the moment the advice and input from
Council members is wasted, as they have no knowledge of the Copus
budget and no influence over how it might be spent. Information
on budgets has been scant—the only documents I have seen
are a scratch paper tabled at the Council meeting last May,[10]
and the draft budget for the so-called business plan produced
by the Royal Society just before the Council meeting in May 2002.*
In the minutes you will note Council's support
for the idea that Copus underpin the forthcoming ECSITE conference
as means of establishing an audience with an important group of
stakeholders—the European network of science centres. Despite
the fact that Council endorsed the proposal twice, Copus has not
been able to make the commitment to the project as its expenditure
is subject to Royal Society preferences and priorities, and not
those identified by Copus Council. This begs the question yet
again, what is the point of seeking advice from a community of
leaders in the field of science communication if their advice
can only be implemented with the further agreement of one of the
players? Their role can no longer be to advise the three founding
organisations on their science communication policies, as each
organisation now has its own programmes of thriving activities
and corporate advice mechanisms in place.
3. The Royal Society's attitude towards
Copus is clear from the Business Plan that was submitted embarrassingly
late before the last Copus Council meeting. I only received the
first draft less than 10 days before the meeting. It read more
like a warning about what Copus shouldn't be getting involved
with, rather than a strong case for raising funds for the remodelled
Copus; it made little reference to the work areas agreed by Council,
and those it did refer to it misinterpreted at a fairly fundamental
level. The Royal Society offered to write the plan at the January
meeting. It completely ignored the initial draft that Copus staff
were asked to prepare as a matter of urgency after the meeting,
and which I include here* as I feel it summarises the agreed objectives,
strategic aims and action points agreed by Council members during
meetings I have chaired.
4. My final point concerns constitutional
and governance issues. As I indicated in my verbal evidence to
your Committee, I am the first to agree that organisations will
be measured by what they achieve, rather than how they are constituted.
However, when the constitution hinders the evolution, implementation
and delivery of agreed objectives, then there is a significant
problem that needs to be addressed. Copus Council agreed that
a report about the terms of reference, governance etc of Copus
should be commissioned, which is how the Jamieson report* came
about. You will note from reading it that it makes no particular
recommendations about the way forward, but does present a number
of suggestions. The discussions at the meeting are minuted as
follows:
"Council considered the Jamieson review
about what would be desirable and/or feasible for terms of reference
and constitution for the remodelled Copus. Council agreed that,
for the moment, Copus should remain an unincorporated body hosted
by The Royal Society, but that its relationship with The Royal
Society and the other sectors on Council should be clarified via
a memorandum of understanding.
As the remodelled Copus evolves and develops
its revised remit, it might be appropriate to consider a more
independent constitutional arrangement that would enable Copus
to become a membership organisation for science communicators.
It was agreed that The Royal Society, which is currently accountable
for Copus, should take this forward in collaboration with the
Chairman."
The Royal Society has interpreted this as Council's
agreement to retain the status quo as an unincorporated body within
the Royal Society for the next three to five years. No attempt
has been made to prepare a Memorandum of Understanding. I find
this somewhat disingenuous, and even, to my mind, a rather strange
version of the current situation, as Copus has absolutely no legal
status—unincorporated or otherwise.
As I have stressed before, it is a matter of
immense regret that it has not been possible to move Copus forward.
The time, support and goodwill I have received from leading figures
in the community only serve to re-emphasise my conviction that
there is a need for an umbrella body of some sort within the field
of science communication. I do not believe that the concerted
brains and expertise of Council members and OST would have invested
this much time and energy in developing such a project if it was
not important. It is a matter of concern that some of the principal
bodies involved in this field cannot see the potential for such
a body, and are too defensive and shortsighted to believe that
they might have something to learn, as well as lots to give, to
such a collaboration.
9 Not printed. Back
10
Not printed. Back
| 
