Response by the British Library
In response to the House of Lords Select Committee, 'Science and Heritage' Recommendations
The British Library warmly welcomes the Report of the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee. The BL commends Baroness Sharp and the committee members for producing such a clear and lucid analysis of the current state of Science and Heritage in the UK.
In addition to providing written and oral evidence for this Select Committee, the British Library recently provided written evidence to the Culture Media and Sport Committee on the subject of conservation research (see paragraphs 50-52).
9.2. Under the current governance and funding structure the maintenance of the science base for conservation, and thus the long-term preservation of the United Kingdom's cultural heritage, are severely under threat. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has hitherto failed to grasp the scale of this threat—indeed, probably does not know it exists. This must be put right. (3.46)
9.3. We recommend that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport review its departmental objectives in light of the Government's policy on sustainability. We recommend in particular that the Department add to its objectives an explicit reference to the need to conserve our cultural heritage for the benefit of future as well as existing communities. (2.23)
9.4. We recommend that the DCMS move rapidly towards the appointment of a permanent Chief Scientific Adviser, as recommended in 2004 by the Office of Science and Technology. (6.24)
9.5. DCMS does not currently possess the scientific expertise to act as an intelligent customer of science. This has prevented the Department from recognising the importance of heritage science to the preservation of our cultural heritage. It has also inhibited the Department from arguing effectively for the allocation of funds to the heritage sector from the European Union Framework Programmes for Research. We therefore recommend that the terms of reference for the new Chief Scientific Adviser make it clear that the appointee should have primary skills in the natural or physical sciences. (6.25)
9.6. Once appointed, we recommend that the DCMS Chief Scientific Adviser act as a "champion" at departmental level for heritage science. This is an essential prerequisite if an understanding of the value of science is to cascade down to the heritage sector as a whole, and the downgrading of conservation and heritage science within the sector is to be reversed. (6.26)
British Library Response to 9.2 – 9.6
• The BL agrees that the science base for conservation and the consequential long-term preservation of the UK 's cultural heritage require substantial input from DCMS and MLA to avert severe, long-term damage to the national movable and immovable cultural heritage.
• The BL agrees with the Report's recommendation that both the DCMS' and MLA's strategic objectives should explicitly address the conservation and conservation science of the cultural heritage.
• The BL notes with regret that “Stewardship” was an early, accelerated strategy within MLA that has been lost to the “access” agenda. In the absence of this strategic, executive lead, the concerned cultural heritage sector itself has engendered many building blocks from within (such as the National Preservation Office's National Preservation Needs Assessment in Libraries and Archives, and the Digital Preservation Coalition's National Assessment of Digital Preservation) which are readily available to inform a stewardship strategy.
• The BL warmly supports the urgent appointment of a permanent Chief Scientific Adviser and is very happy to assist Dr Michael Dixon in his advisory capacity to DCMS in fulfilling the role. The BL is not only taking a leading role in establishing conservation science in libraries and archives in the UK, but has recently appointed a Head of Science, Technology and Medicine to lead the development of the BL's collection in the new e-universe.
• The BL supports the need for the permanent Chief Scientific Adviser to be a “hard” scientist with considerable personal authority in the STM community.
• DCMS is ideally placed to ensure the coordination of the important cultural products of science and technology, between the educational, scientific, environmental, commercial and humanities activities in government. Heritage science is one of the most accessible bridges between these seemingly disparate fields.
• The BL encourages DCMS to ensure that its scientific policy in relation to both the cultural heritage and the narrower heritage science, is founded on a strong national base of scientifically literate humanities scholars and arts literate scientists in collections-based institutions. International collaboration and a flux of people between different cultural strands, for example, collections-based institutions, HE and the private sector will contribute to UK heritage science institutions regaining their world ranking of excellence.
The Research Councils
9.7. We recommend that for the avoidance of doubt the Office of Science and Innovation should formally appoint the AHRC as the Research Council responsible for heritage science, and that at the same time it review the funding available to the AHRC from within the overall budget of the Research Councils so as to reflect the higher cost of scientific research. We further recommend that the OSI review the performance of the AHRC in this regard before the end of 2008. (6.43)
9.8. As champion for heritage, one of the key tasks of the Arts and Humanities Research Council will be to deliver an increase in Research Council funding for heritage science. In the absence of reliable data, it is currently impossible to measure success or failure in this task. We therefore recommend that the AHRC commission an analysis of current levels of Research Council funding for heritage science, and that it publish the results and update them annually from now on. (6.44)
9.9. We recommend that the AHRC take steps to ensure that its responsibility for scientific research in the field of cultural heritage is reflected in the appointment of an appropriate "champion" at Council level, supported by qualified staff. (6.45)
9.10. We recommend that the AHRC, in conjunction with the other Research Councils and the heritage sector, bring forward proposals for a time-limited directed programme of research in heritage science, with the aim both of re-generating this area of research and of attracting younger scientists to enter it. (6.46)
9.11. We recommend that AHRC and the Office of Science and Innovation make a formal commitment to recognise the full cost of science-based research in field of cultural heritage. This commitment should be reflected in the size of individual awards and in the AHRC's acceptance of full economic costs. (6.47)
9.12. We welcome the decision of the Arts and Humanities Research Council to invite applications from the National Museums and Galleries for academic analogue status. However, in order to promote collaboration with university based scientists we recommend that:
- All National Museums and Galleries seek academic analogue status with the appropriate science-based Research Councils, in addition to the AHRC;
- That those Councils encourage and facilitate applications from the National Museums and Galleries in the same way that the AHRC has done. (4.26)
British Library Response to 9.7 – 9.12
• The BL fully supports AHRC being formally appointed the Research Council responsible for heritage science.
• The BL further welcomes the moves within AHRC already under way to address the need to champion scientific research in the cultural heritage field.
• It was clear at the recent AHRC/CCLRC joint conference at Tate Modern, that the higher cost of scientific research is a major concern that the BL has already highlighted. We support the recommendation that AHRC and OSI acknowledge the full cost of science-based research in the field of cultural heritage.
• The BL welcomes the recommendation that the AHRC, in conjunction with the other Research Councils and the heritage sector, bring forward proposals for a time-limited directed programme of research in heritage science, however, with the proviso that the full, higher costs of scientific research are recognised from the start.
• Based on its experience, for example in recruiting a project manager for the Mellon-funded scientific research projects, the BL is very aware of the need to attract younger scientists to enter this field and considers dedicated funding of a research programme to be a way of addressing this.
• The BL supports the proposal in 9.12 encouraging national institutions to become designated independent research organisations (previously termed academic analogue status) with appropriate science-based Research Councils in addition to AHRC. This support is based on observations of the Natural History Museum's success with other RCs. The BL recognises that there is the danger that multiple independent research organisations could dilute the primacy of AHRC in heritage research at a time when it is just establishing itself, but in practice, it will doubtless remain the main RC. However, we note that many institutions will not have the critical mass of researchers in science disciplines needed to support independent research organisation status with the science research councils.
Dissemination of best practice and public engagement
9.13. Despite the outstanding quality of individual publications, the dissemination of up-to-date results of heritage science to practitioners in the United Kingdom is patchy and poorly co-ordinated, particularly in the field of moveable heritage. We therefore recommend that the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, in consultation with the National Museums and Galleries and Icon, review and consolidate the sources of scientific guidance available for collections-based conservators, with a view to providing a regular, central source of up-to-date advice. (5.29)
9.14. We recommend that the Office of Science and Innovation undertake to provide the necessary resources to enable the Institute of Conservation to become the focus for the use of heritage science projects to promote public engagement with SET as a whole. (5.37)
British Library Response to 9.13 - 9.14
• The BL agrees that the dissemination of heritage science to UK conservation practitioners is fragmented, especially in the field of movable heritage. There is a healthy precedent in the MLA's predecessor body, the Museums and Galleries Commission, being a trusted clearing house for up-to-date applied research. In the current landscape which includes Icon, Collections Link, MDA, NPO, DPC etc, the BL is unsure whether MLA has the capacity, the capability and the will to lead on this role. However, if by taking on this role the overall strategic focus and commitment to the practical stewardship of the cultural heritage within MLA is strengthened, then there is merit in the proposal.
Information and communications technologies
9.15. In 2004 the National Audit Office highlighted the lack of a national framework for the digitisation of records across museums, libraries and archives. Little progress has since been made. We recommend that the Government, through the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, and in consultation with the devolved administrations, make every effort to facilitate the development of such a framework for the sector. (7.39)
9.16. The Museum Documentation Association (MDA) is working hard to promote best practice and common standards in the use of ICT in museums, libraries and archives. However, it lacks teeth, and we therefore recommend that its parent body, the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, incorporate MDA approved standards for the use of ICT as part of the museum accreditation scheme. (7.40)
9.17. We further recommend that the MDA and National Archives formalise their relationship, with a view to clarifying their different areas of responsibility, as a matter of urgency. (7.41)
9.18. In order to keep abreast of progress in technology, the heritage sector needs to develop closer partnerships with industry, exploiting and marketing new commercial opportunities as they arise—although such partnerships should not replace long term core public funding to support investment in conservation and heritage science. We therefore recommend that the National Museums and Galleries, along with the MLA, drawing on experience in the universities and Research Councils, explore ways to provide a central source of information and support for the development of commercial partnerships. (7.42)
British Library Response to 9.15 - 9.18
• The British Library has extensive experience with digitisation projects, a feature of which is the plurality of funding streams. Such a multiplicity of funding sources is different to some other European countries, where there has been a concerted national government effort to digitise swathes of the national heritage. A national framework may be helpful if accompanied by specific funding, and may be helpful in establishing technical standards, not least to militate against future digital preservation problems and costs. The BL would welcome high level assistance at government level to promote and lever EU funding, for example with FP7 i2010.
• The BL has experience of close partnerships with industry, such as its strategic partnership in the digital arena with Microsoft and welcomes the call to assist the heritage sector with developing commercial partnerships.
• As with other suggestions that mention National Museums and Galleries, the BL would like Libraries and Archives to be explicitly included in such developments and would be pleased to contribute to cross-sectoral discussions.
• JISC has a key role to play in this area, given that it leads the group working on e-content strategy (of which the BL is a member) and given that it is a major source of funding for digitisation.
A strategy for heritage science
9.19. Collaboration is crucial to heritage science. There needs to be good communication between university and museum-based scientists in order to draw effectively on the resources of both communities. But at the moment, despite isolated successes, collaboration remains largely ad hoc . There is no-one within the sector to promote information exchange and support the development of collaborative research projects. In particular, we deplore the fact that there is no body within the United Kingdom taking a strategic overview of research priorities across the field of heritage science. We therefore make the following recommendations. (4.39)
9.20. ;We recommend the development of a comprehensive national strategy for heritage science, embracing both the immoveable and moveable heritage, and covering the United Kingdom as a whole. We do not recommend the establishment of a National Conservation Centre at this stage, though this might be needed in the longer term if the sector does not come together as we have recommended. (8.46)
9.21. We recommend that English Heritage provide the secretariat to support the development of this national strategy for heritage science. We call on the major heritage organisations in England , and their counterparts in Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland , along with the universities and the Research Councils, to come together in establishing a steering group to take forward the implementation of this recommendation. (8.47)
9.22. We recommend that the newly appointed Chief Scientific Adviser of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport chair and oversee the development of this strategy. (8.48)
9.23. We further recommend that the strategy be developed as a "bottom up" strategy, with considerable input from the "users and doers" of heritage science, so that the many institutions that play a part in the heritage sector can share a sense of ownership. (8.49)
9.24. In parallel, as the strategy develops, and research priorities are identified, we recommend that the Research Councils instigate a time-limited directed programme of research, to encourage collaborative projects and build capacity in heritage science. (8.50)
British Library Response to 9.19 – 9.24
• The British Library considers the need for a comprehensive national strategy for heritage science, embracing both movable and immovable heritage, to be absolutely fundamental and very strongly supports this recommendation.
• The BL led on the development of a Framework for Applied Conservation Research in Libraries and Archives in the UK , and would be willing to be very involved with the development of the cross-domain national strategy.
• The BL is gratified that the House of Lords Select Committee recognised the value of the collaborative approach that the BL and the TNA took with the other five copyright libraries and national archives, to produce an internationally peer-agreed strategy for priority areas for applied science for libraries and archives. The subsequent award of $700k to the BL by the Andrew W Mellon Foundation for two projects that strategically fitted with the identified priorities is testament to the value of this approach. Based on the evidence of this model, the BL completely agrees with the recommendation that a “bottom-up” approach is the most appropriate, involving “users and doers”. The BL is very happy to contribute substantially in this way to the national strategy, contributing both experience of delivering a successful “bottom-up” strategy across two domains, as well as ideas and expertise.
• Any national strategy for heritage science will require underpinning with a national assessment of the needs of the national heritage. The BL would point out that much work has already been done both across sectors and within significant national collections to provide the fundamental data to underpin a strategy. For example, a Preservation Needs Assessment of UK libraries and archives, and a National Digital Preservation Needs Assessment have both recently been completed (by the NPO and DPC respectively). Many museums, galleries, libraries and archives have undertaken either risk assessments (eg TNA) or condition audits (eg Museum of London, V&A, BL). The BL cautions against recommissioning work that has already been carried out by or within the sector itself, which would be wasteful of time and money.
• The BL strongly endorses the conclusion that there is currently no need for a National Conservation Centre. The distributed, federated, collaborative model across heritage institutions and academic organisations towards conservation research, both within the UK and internationally, is the best, most pragmatic model at the moment.
• Furthermore, several Centres of Excellence have relatively recently been established (such as the Textile Conservation Centre) or are about to open (for example the BL Centre for Conservation) and a distributed, national network of centres of excellence is a viable possibility.
• The BL supports the suggestion that English Heritage provide the secretariat to support the development of this national strategy for heritage science, whilst highlighting that EH would require some additional resources to carry this role out effectively.
• The BL considers that there is logic in the newly appointed Chief Scientific Adviser of the DCMS chairing and overseeing the development of this strategy.
Helen Shenton
Head of Collection Care
British Library
11 December 2006
