“Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.” – Douglas Adams
Last Friday, the Royal Institution made it's director, Susan Greenfield, redundant. The decision itself was far more melodramatic than that statement, from the information garnered by the media. It's said that staff were given thirty minutes notice to attend a meeting in which it was announced by the chief executive, that she was locked out of her grace-and-favour flat immediately, that she was offered a superb redundancy package which she turned down, that she had wrecked the prestigious institution's finances, that an 'old boys' club' culture was really behind it all.
Unsurprisingly, the bit that seems to have taken off is the 'old boys club' claims. Lady Greenfield made a statement saying that she will be presenting a claim in the employment tribunal which will include allegations of sex discrimination.
"I am the only female who has been appointed to this iconic post throughout the 211-year history of the Royal Institution, and I cannot see how this decision can be in the best interests of the organisation or its members."
Lady Greenfield is widely acknowledged to have been a fantastic asset to the Ri: she is clever, accessible and most importantly, can explain science to mere mortals. But science isn't accountancy, and finance always comes first - as the credit crunch should well have taught us all. All charities have to file their accounts with the Charity Commission. The mere fact that their accounts and annual return for 2008 were filed three months late speaks of poor internal governance, and the Trustee's report discusses issues around their finances.
Digging deeper into the return brings up the page with the Staff Costs, drilling specifically down to the employees earning over £60k. It doesn't take a genius to figure out where the Director falls. Earlier pages also show the Director's Office expenses, with another ~£207k to it's name.

The Ri says that they can no longer afford the post of Director, hence it - and she - is being made redundant. But do those numbers add up? Or is it really a matter of personal actions: she spent too much money, they were too narrow-minded to take any more of her supposed drama (the tabloid interested in Greenfield's marital affairs was particularly uncalled for), and so it was inevitable that this would be the parting of their ways.
It's one hell of a way to make a point - fire her, logic would say, don't stop yourselves from being able to have a director altogether. While I'm sure that they could construe a new position that does half the job (with half the salary) with a new title to avoid the issue of filling a redundant post, it's also the type of behaviour that gives the corporate world it's bad name. Following suit seems unwise.
If this all is a personal matter, as Greenfield claims, then the Trustees and Executives will have to move fast to restore their balance. It's a shame to loose Greenfield, but it would be a far greater loss to lose the Ri altogether. In proving the Ri wrong, she may well hammer the final nail in their coffin - and that's without sex discrimination tagged on.
Ironically enough, as I wrote this, I received an email from womenintechnology.co.uk inviting me to their next event, 'Women of Substance: Inspiring Women in STEM', hosted by none other than the Royal Institution of Great Britain. Wonderful timing. I wonder if this will increase or decrease the size of the audience?
“The message [...] from the media is [...] ‘If you don’t get married and have kids right away, you’re gonna be miserable the rest of your life’.” – Caryl Rivers
It is often said that media portrays women badly. We're offered up as sex symbols to men, as size zero models for girls and fashionistas for women. Even when said with the best of intentions, the implication is always there to dress like Michelle Obama, have the charitable goodwill of Melinda Gates and the talent of J.K. Rowling.
The media usually misses out the non-artistic, non-charitable women. On occasion, they pick up women in the sciences and technology and those like Susan Greenfield and Marissa Mayer tend to get the attention because they are beautiful, blonde women – and that dominates the story far more than their brains.
But it can be countered that that's not always the case. The media picked up on Ada Lovelace Day to a surprising degree, with Wendy Hall and Sue Black doing pieces on BBC News and print journalism reporting and even contributing to the event. Articles regularly appear, usually in the education arena, examining the percentages of girls taking various subjects and how they have varied. The declining IT workforce has been a matter of priority for some time now, and the role that women play is usually not ignored when looked at properly.
Then there are the magazines. Currently located in WHSmiths under the all-inclusive header of Men’s Interest, they include publications such as Stuff, which claims to be "stylishly designed, wittily written and packed with reviews of the latest gadgets, gear and technology." Nikki Moore of Girl Geek Chic is a contributor to Stuff.tv and aims to showcase 'girl friendly' gadgets with the hopes of increasing female interest in the latest innovations. But if it's under a clearly labelled Men-Only banner, how far will she be able to reach?
While the success of Ada Lovelace Day has been lauded by many, I believe it has further to go. The goal was to combat this issue regarding a lack of technical female role models, and shout out about their professional and academic accomplishments. This was achieved far beyond Suw Charman-Anderson's original expectations, and for that she gets kudos. But the day was showcased on BBC News, in the Guardian podcast, in the BCS publications.
Where are the next generation of potential female technologists looking now? Do they follow the ten o'clock news and visit their favourite newspapers website? Or are they at their local newsagent, picking up another copy of Cosmo and then going home to sit on Facebook? Perhaps they’re sitting in front of their televisions, ignoring the typical 'boys shows' and flicking over to Friends for the billionth repeat. This is where we need to go next, these are the ones that need to see those role models to believe.
They say that Ada Lovelace Day is over, but it's only just begun.
“Science is becoming more pervasive and invasive than it has ever been before.” – Baroness Greenfield
Professor Wendy Hall is making the most of her moment in the sun. The fact that she’s been made a dame has been covered widely, no doubt partially thanks to the large women in technology network Twittering away, emailing contacts, and making sure the media knows. The Guardian has a few words on her reaction, in which she succinctly states how she plans to use this status: to encourage more young people to go into computer science.
A lot of the time, I get sidetracked and focus on the issue of women in technology – namely, the fact that there aren’t enough. But the truth is that the number of students applying to do Computer Science courses nationwide are dropping (apparently except at the University of Southampton, oddly enough, where Prof Hall teaches). At Cambridge in 2000, 499 students applied and 88 were admitted (71 men, 17 women). In 2007, 231 applied and 71 were admitted (64 men, 7 women).
(You can see why I'm concerned about women. That's a 54% decrease in applications overall, but only a 10% decrease in the number of men admitted, compared to the 59% decrease in the number of women.)
But back to the problem: it’s all about getting children, boys and girls alike, excited about computing at a younger age.
The Royal Institution (RI), an independent charity founded in 1799 designed to connect people with science, started delivering their famous Christmas lectures for children in 1825. Lectures have been delivered by luminaries such as Michael Faraday who initiated them in the first place, Carl Sagan and Baroness Susan Greenfield. This year’s lectures were around the theme of building the ultimate computer, presented by Professor Chris Bishop.
The best thing about them is that they’re accessible. Children and adults can listen alike and understand what’s being said, and more importantly, become enthused. The RI is an academic institution as well, and much groundbreaking research has been conducted there. However, as every university student knows, lecturers don’t always make the best teachers and this is where the RI lectures soar above the rest: these are the best teachers you’ll find.
The lectures can be accessed online, for anyone interested, and Prof Bishop speaks about the lectures (and his shock at how small the Faraday lecture theatre actually is) in the Guardian’s Science Weekly podcast.
Apart from the huge success of the Christmas lectures, the other thing that I like about the RI is that the current director is Baroness Greenfield. In 1994, she was invited to be the first woman to deliver the Christmas lectures, and four short years later she became the first female director of the RI – and only the fifth director to date.
"My dream for the Royal Institution is that people should go to it like they go to a cinema or concert or play. I want people to leave there after an event excited, frightened, worried, inspired, involved, and above all disagreeing with each other, like you would after a good play. Because once we have science talked about -and people thinking about it and in a sense owning it - then we have a chance." – Baroness Greenfield
I was fortunate enough to attend a talk she gave to the womenintechnology network, titled Banana skins, bottlenecks and elephant traps: the perilous journey for women in technology. She lives up to every description, witty and clever and talking a million miles a minute, irreverently poking fun at us and herself. After all, how often is one in a room full of 200 female scientists and technologists with only the odd man dotted about?
The thing that I like best about her is that she refuses to sacrifice her own individuality, including her femininity, while walking down the scientific path. She’s neither a single woman who refuses to have a life in favour of being an academic, nor is she married with 2.4 children. The media lambasts her for everything from wearing miniskirts to getting divorced, but she keeps on going, and more importantly telling people, so that we all keep on going too. According to her, the most important thing you can find yourself is a mentor, and if you’re not sure who that person should be, use this as a rule of thumb: "Someone who believes in you more than you believe in yourself."
