Why is the Royal Institution closing?

The 60 Million mentioned above is this for the purchase, or the yearly running costs or something completely different?

I mean this with no disrespect to anyone involved, but if the post by “Prof Em Robin L Willson” is correct (and I have no reason to question that) then maybe this was/is a contributing factor.

I know raising 60,million on-line is a feat, but it is not beyond a reasonable capacity; especially as there are many scientists that I feel would support this by providing their time in return for donations (I was personally informed of this issue by a renowned scientist: Prof Richard Dawkins, via a simple “Twitter post”)

I personally can not offer any assistance unless I know the reasoning behind the decision made by whomever to close the institution.

I shall return regularly to see the updates (As I recommend you cover the reasoning on this page too) Alternatively you can reach me directly on my own new twitter @ArranWood.

Best regards
Arran Wood
Waiting in eager anticipation

No point in selling the place if the institute goes on losing money. Better to balance the books first and then not have to sell.

Although I am a working scientist, for me the reason to rescue Albermarle Street is not primarily about science, but very broad and cultural. It equates directly to the recent case of saving a Titian for the Nation. Its part of our History and an inspiration to the future. Its part of what made us what we are.

Oh for the days of Lawrence Bragg, George Porter, Mr Coates and an enthusiastic librarian
- days when those in charge were accessible and honoured their appointments, or genuinely apologised if not;
- days when the Director of Research was in the building or left a competent representative when not;
- days when there was a wealth of creativity in-house full-time, and not part-time, or contracted out;
- days when a piece of copper wire or books, to use as supports in a demonstration, could be readily obtained without being told it would need a written request;
- days when you could bring your own sandwiches and be welcomed;
- days when the building was “alive” and buzzed, and people smiled.

This is not a criticism of the present incumbents personally. It is simply the result of the present governance structure, the roles of the staff, and their suitablity for continuing Faraday´s legacy.

As a colleague has said, “The RI does seem to have lost its way. Perhaps, its time has passed.”
Certainly with its present structure it has.
And simply getting the government to bale out the RI is not the answer.

The RI, in name need not continue. The principal Lecture Theatre is an historic arena, and it would be sad to see its demise. But how many hours a week is it actually used and with what occupancy?
What must continue is Faraday´s real legacy – an organization committed to promoting wider access to science without dumbing it down. An organization, not just for the privileged with access to central London, but for young and old in the regions too. If such an organization could be based at Number 21 so much the better.

But if this is to be acheived, the whole organization needs to be taken over by another academically-related organization, a new management structure created and appropriately qualified, full-time, committed and enthusiastic staff appointed. The building must be used to its full potential.

London has many scientifically orientated institutions with fine premises such as, the Royal Society, the Royal Society of Chemistry, The Institute of Physics, The Institute of Engineering and Technology, the Geological Society, The Wellcome Foundation, not to mention the national and private museums and University institutions.
Given Faraday´s fine contibution to all of them, only apathy, politics or egos can prevent his legacy continuing.
Perhaps it is time to remember the adage: “God or Nature created science; man created maths, physics,chemistry and biology.”

The good things about the RI we all know: its heritage and popular teaching exemplified by the Christmas lectures. Let’s be frank about the bad things: stuffiness, exclusivity, infighting and rank incompetence in vital disciplines other than science.

It would be far better to leave the existing charity with its woeful financial management behind and have a new entity (CIC, Co-op, IPS or charity) purchase the building and assets in a new asset-locked entity dedicated to a Good Science (to mirror Ben Goldacre’s phrase) charitable or community purpose.

The new Australian RI in Adelaide is an inspiration in its energy and ideas. This needs a new start, with vision about the future role of science and competence in matters of property, finance and management as well as science.

The only site in the UK they report as being under threat is the Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City.
Now I have my loyalties to Liverpool, but the discoveries made in the RI building has had global impact on a scale that vastly exceeds that city’s docks.