Rumours have been circulating for at least a month, but last night Susan Greenfield was sacked by the Royal Institution from her position as Director and, in apparent retaliation, announced that she would sue her former employers for discrimination.
If I were a cynic, I'd say that the timing is quite interesting, with the announcement coming late enough on a Friday night to ensure that the story will be three days old by the time it's picked up by the Daily newspapers next week - at the time of writing only the BBC and Mark Henderson at The Times have picked up the story. Update: Or not, as Mark points out in a follow-up piece today.
The sacking was apparently prompted by the dire state of the Royal Institution's finances. As with any charity their accounts are available online, and they don't make for pretty reading. They are effectively over three millions pounds overdrawn as a result of Greenfield's ambitious £22m renovation program; a project that went over-budget, over-time, and resulted in the RI re-opening its doors in the middle of a global financial crisis.
This money needs to be paid back, with the RI making a commitment to the Charity Commission to replenish the funds at a rate of £350,000 per annum, but this will be a struggle. An independent audit report in their accounts states that:
"If the charity is to continue as a going concern, the financial projections for the three years ending 30 September, 2011, need to be met. [...] There is a significant uncertainty as to whether these projections will be achieved."
The official reason for Greenfield's sacking is that it is part of a management restructing designed to save costs. As Ian Sample pointed out in the Guardian, when rumours about Greenfield's position first appeared back in December, it's hard to know how much Greenfield was paid. We can speculate; the move implies it was a significant amount, while the charity's accounts reveal that staff costs include two salaries in the £60-70k range, and one in the £70-80k range. Substantial support costs exist for the Director's office, and once the full economic cost of her position is calculated, the move looks set to save significant amounts of desperately needed money.
Or at least it would, if they didn't have to fight a legal battle. For the Royal Institution this is going to be a bit of a nightmare. Their finances are precariously balanced, and independent auditors are already concerned that they may not be able to make the necessary repayments promised. Unlike Greenfield they simply cannot afford to get involved in any costly legal action. Losing would be unthinkable, threatening the very future of the 211-year-old institution.
What isn't at all clear is on what grounds Greenfield is taking this action. Her statement, as reported by the BBC, reads:
"As well as contesting the legitimacy of the process, I 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 cannot see how this decision can be in the best interests of the organisation or its members."
It will be interesting to see if any specifics around these claims emerge. Until they do, it's impossible to be certain how well-founded they are. The accounting evidence available though seems to back up the RI's stance, and it's worth noting that Greenfield had been in charge for over a decade without incident. It's hard to claim unfair dismissal when you've been laid off from an institution facing a financial crisis after ten years of your leadership.
Susan Greenfield was already a controversial figure, with many finding her approach to science communication objectionable, myself included. Ben Goldacre wrote a brief summary last night which sums up the concerns of many scientists over her use of the media to promote her own speculative theories, and her public endorsement of lucrative 'brain-training' products that have little published evidence for efficacy. I plan to cover the controversies of her tenure in more detail after the weekend, but for now Ben's summary is well worth a read.
The stakes are large. The RIs accountants are already tearing their hair out, and Albemarle St. will resonate to a chorus of squeaky bums at the prospect of more financial damage being inflicted on a charity already facing doubts about its future existance.
If Greenfield really is the victim of wrong-doing, then of course it's a scandal that should be exposed; but if this is simply retaliation from somebody pissed off that they lost their job, then the Baroness could find as she nears 60 that this is one big controversy too far. There are many in the scientific community who would not be that fussed if her career as a credible public scientist were to reach an ignominious end.
Update: The RI have now issued an official statement, which can be found here.
Never underestimate the need for dignity in retreat. Perhaps Greenfield is launching legal action because not to do so would be tacit admission of her critics charges? Perhaps she is holding out for a dignified sending off and whatever the modern equivalent of an engraved watch is? If they are in such a dire financial situation that legal costs are to be avoided then Greenfield holds a strong hand in getting what she wants.
I also find it unlikely that over the 10 years of her employment the RI's expenditure was under her sole control with no oversight from the Board of Trustees or other members of staff. She may well be a scapegoat for the general incompetence of the RI management.
That said, she has certainly undermined the public's understanding of science through her nonsensical pronouncements and weird commercial conflicts. It would be a shame if she was sacked as a scapegoat for management failures rather than for being a danger to knowledge.
I wrote about her comments on TV/Internet eating children's brains a few months ago here. On this occasion, she and Archbishop Vincent Nichols agreed - when scientists and religious leaders are in accordance, it's worth checking if something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Also, it may sound like a trivial point, but she was supposed to be a science communicator and her books are really badly written. Her style is terrible. This is a lesser crime that being scientifically questionable but to non-scientists, readability is important.
Re Gimpy's comments, the inner workings of charities are a bit of a minefield. Have written a comment on how it sometimes goes over at the BadSci Forum.
I would agree that large decisions with major financial implications would be collective, but a theme of charities which have a "Director" or "President" is that such a person with a pet project / bee in their bonnet can be hard to head off, even if they are not really an Executive Head.
I can't believe a full on gloves-off employment tribunal case, with attendant media gawking, is going to do either SG or the RI any favours. I am left wondering how much severance the RI were offering her.
Anyway, I would be surprised to see it go the distance, but if they are going to settle then they will need to do it quick to avoid serious damage to both their reputations.
Mark Henderson responds:
"I can reassure Martin, though, that there was nothing obviously sinister about the timing. There was no announcement -- the RI were pretty surprised last night when I rang them to confirm a late tip about what had happened earlier in the day. Their original plan had been not to release any details to the media until all its members had been informed."
@ Chris: Thanks for that, I've updated the article accordingly now.
@ Gimpy/Dr Aust: One of the problems with reporting on this case is that there does seem to be a slight lack of transparency over who exactly is responsible for what in the RI. One of their contentions is that the position of director is effectively redundant, but it's hard to find out what exactly the duties of the director were. Certainly Greenfield seems to have held overall responsibility for the running of it.
@ Tessera: I tend to agree, personally I don't find her to be a great communicator.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
Agreed, Martin, esp about the confusion over whose job does what.
At an educated guess, the RI Director position cannot be full-time; if SG was being paid 60-80 K pa (plus possibly having a grace and favour apartment in London assocd with the post) then I would guess it is probably formally designated as something like 2 days/wk - unlikely to be more, and perhaps less.
In many ways the RI "Director" position as it sounds like it is constituted is a historical anomaly. It seems to merge what is nowadays usually done by a Head of a Council of Trustees (of a charity) - who gets expenses and allowances but not wages - and a full-time salaried Chief Exec. And if the RI Director job is part-time, then it is not like being "Director" of (say) the Science Museum, where the person really is Boss of Everything. So it seem the RI job falls rather in-between.
The standard way to run scientific charities and societies these days is a bit like "Cabinet Govt without a Prime Minister." The Trustees, or a Council elected by the members, are the parliament/cabinet (again, allowances but not paid) . The permanent (paid) staff of the organisation are the Civil Service, with a Chief Exec as head of the Civil Service. See, for instance, the way the Royal Society is set up.
In this sort of set-up a "president" is the figurehead and chairs the Council meetings. But they are Mary Robinson rather than Barack Obama. As I said before, it sounds very much like the RI are trying to re-organise themselves in this manner.
@gimpy
She's been made redundant rather than sacked so it wouldn't be (officially) on the basis of either bad financial management or bad science communication. The RI will argue that it is the simple fact that they are in financial do-do, they need to make savings and the role of Director is no longer necessary.
Greenfield will (I presume) argue that the decision is NOT on financial basis alone but that she has been discriminated against. She'll have to provide evidence of this, for example, if she had made previous complaints over the past 10 years about her treatment, witnesses to verify etc.
Either way, we'll probably never find out whether this was cost-cutting or a way to get rid of her because I suspect that the RI will do all they can to keep this out of Tribunal and try to settle it.
Re: Naomi's 'redundant' point..
The breaking news last night was 'sacked' (hence my wording), that then changed to 'redundant' later on, which is probably more accurate from a legal perspective.
That said, I don't think either term is entirely suitable for what is a pretty unusual situation. It seems from Ian Sample's comments in the Guardian in December that she originally accepted the need to reduce the position, then 'changed her mind.' On top of that, she was apparently quite a divisive figure within the RI. While the official line is that her position is no longer necessary and has been removed to save costs; I find it hard to believe that other factors a dislike of Greenfield or dissatisfaction with her performance didn't play a part for some of those making the decision. It seems to be part redundancy, part sacking, part resignation.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
@Martin
Hmmm, well if that is the case then she'll probably have a good case against the RI. If they want this to be a redundancy, they have to make it straight down the line. If they're using a 'redundancy' to get rid of someone they don't like, then she may be able to prove victimisation due to dislike (or sex discrimination as she seems to be going for). If they thought she wasn't good at her job and had grounds for that, they should have sacked her.
This might get messy. But I suspect they'll all want to handle this quickly. Greenfield won't want there to be an opportunity for scientists to line up and say she was rubbish either.
He may be dreadfully dreary but Draust is almost (but not quite) polymathematical* in his intimate dissection of the former director of the Royal Institution. Well done, Drippy!
* that deluded knave the Jack of Kent considers Herr Draust a 'polymath'. Tee hee!
An extraordinary, ludicrous thing to say!
"It seems to be part redundancy, part sacking, part resignation."
Oh joy. Snittykitty is following me around the net.
Have even the folk at JABS grown tired of your wit, Snitty?
Excellent blogpost.
I do wonder whether alleging sexual discrimination is for tactical reasons: it makes an unwelcome case harder to get rid of before trial, and it means that potentially adverse evidence (eg sexist comments, etc) can be used (and publicised) which otherwise may not be relevant.
Unless the RI have their paperwork in impeccable shape, this - as Naomi says - is going to be messy. Any hint that the redundancy is being used as an ulterior method of getting rid of her will weaken the RI position: courts and tribunals can be very harsh when faced with what they suspect are contrived ways of getting someone out.
That said, it may be that the RI saw this as the only practical (and potentially least expensive, even if litigated) way of letting Greenfield go.
The RI statement is concilatory; by not being aggressive they are making it as easy as possible for there to be a deal. However, Greenfield, by adding sexual discrimination is (for me) sending a more robust and strident signal.
It will come down in good part to whether that role is really redundant or not. Here I share the vagueness of others: it does not appear clear what the job description was...
It will be interesting to see who they replace her with. The role will have to change significantly for redundancy to work as a reason for letting her go.
If there were more women in science her accusation would be less worrying.
As it is, she is right that the decision is based in sexism since science is the most sexist realm of public office there is!
The problem is that the management and the economy became more important than the rest and I regret it.
superrefman