From Science Magazine

UNITED KINGDOM:
Parliament Takes Aim at Royal Society
Adam Bostanci*

CAMBRIDGE, U.K.--A showdown is looming between Britain's oldest and most respected
scientific institution and the U.K.'s House of Commons. Responding to long-standing concerns
over elitism and discrimination against women at the Royal Society, the Commons' Select
Committee for Science and Technology has launched a probe of how the society and similar
institutions should use public money and how they elect members.

The Royal Society, founded in 1660, received $37 million from the government last year, most
of which it spent on postdoctoral research fellowships and travel grants. It also organizes
meetings, publishes journals, and acts as an independent "voice of science" for the
government. Each year, the society bestows lifelong membership on 42 new "fellows." But
despite a policy of equal opportunity, only 44 of its present 1216 fellows are women.
Moreover, 62% of them are based in London, Oxford, or Cambridge, home to the country's top
universities.

Select Committee chair Ian Gibson, former dean of biology at the University of East Anglia
in Norwich, says he wants to find out why the society's fellows do not reflect the makeup of
the wider scientific community. He also wants to ensure that there isn't duplication of
effort among the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering, and other learned
societies in areas such as the popularization of science. "That outcome includes the
possibility of more money for learned societies," he says. His goal is to achieve "a
complete revamp and modernization" of the Royal Society.

Robert May, president of the Royal Society and former government chief scientist, told
Science he acknowledges that the society is "working against the pyramid" of gender
inequality and is actively trying to identify women scientists who may have been overlooked.
It has also recently changed its nomination rules: Starting this year, a candidate needs to
be nominated by only two fellows instead of six, which may make it easier for women to be
nominated. "We also try to have women on all our committees, but that turns out to be a
burden for [the female fellows], because there are so few," says May. However, he says, "we
will not have different standards of election [for men and women]."

Early reaction from scientists supports that view. Plant scientist Lorna Casselton, a Royal
Society fellow at Oxford University, agrees that doctoring the selection process to favor
women would be unacceptable: "I don't think women would like to see double standards
applied." All the female fellows contacted by Science stressed that they had never
experienced or seen any discrimination in the selection of candidates. "The problem is with
society, not with the Society," says physiologist Frances Ashcroft, a fellow at Oxford
University. Fewer women follow careers in science, and the proportion of women in the Royal
Society is the same as the proportion holding scientific chairs in British universities, she
says.

The Select Committee intends to call the Royal Society and other societies to give evidence
after March. It will be an "interesting battle," says Gibson. But he may have little power
to influence the inner workings of the Royal Society. "Once the committee has discovered how
we elect fellows, we will welcome its ideas," counters May.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With additional reporting by Anna Baynham.

Volume 295, Number 5558, Issue of 15 Feb 2002, p. 1212.
Copyright © 2002 by The American Association for the Advancement of Science. All rights
reserved.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort
to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy,
scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair
use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for
research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material for
purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.