So it’s farewell then, Baroness Greenfield
Francis Sedgemore, Saturday 9 January 2010 at 13:45 UTC
One of Britain’s best-known science media tarts has just been given her marching orders.
Baroness Professor Susan Greenfield, one-time neurologist and until yesterday full-time director of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, has been made redundant with immediate effect. Those of us with an interest in such arcane matters have long known that the Royal Institution is in financial difficulties, and Greenfield’s management of this once august body has been questionable, to say the least. But her dismissal – which she looks set to contest on grounds of gender discrimination – has come as a most pleasant surprise.
Now I have a deep loathing for egotists and shameless self-promoters, and Greenfield ticks both of these boxes. But the main problem I have with the noble peer concerns her relationship with a network of contrarian academics, media workers and public relations professionals formerly known as the Revolutionary Communist Party. Despite its professed support for free market ideas, and receipt of considerable amounts of corporate sponsorship, the cult follows a textbook revolutionary defeatist ideology.
The Royal Institution hosts a cult front organisation known as the Science Media Centre, to which Greenfield acted as “midwife” (her description). Linked to this is Sense about Science, which plays a prominent role in the current campaign to keep English libel law out of science. Greenfield is also an advisor to the Social Issues Research Centre, an Oxford-based corporate public relations outfit masquerading as a social science think tank.
Arguments about the malign influence of these political moonies in science communication have been going on for some time behind the scenes, and occasionally they bubble over into the public domain. While we shall have to take it on trust that Greenfield’s ejection from the Royal Institution is a result of financial pressures and the need for a management shakeup, you can safely assume that ideological battles have played a part, as have personality conflicts. It will be interesting to see what happens now to the Science Media Centre.
Feed the writer! 
Saturday 9 January 2010 at 17:02 UTC
I get the feeling that you have little time for ‘Sense about Science’, and therefore by inference, their campaign to keep English libel law out of science matters. Which somewhat surprises me. Care to say more? Thanks.
Saturday 9 January 2010 at 17:10 UTC
Geoff – How can you infer that, because I have a problem with Sense about Science, I do not support the libel reform campaign, of which Sense about Science is but one part? That would be a logical fallacy.
I am a signatory to the libel reform campaign petition. What more can I possibly say?
Saturday 9 January 2010 at 17:37 UTC
OK, so then I assumed too much… Let’s step back. What is it about ‘Sense about Science’ that seems to raise your negative feelings? I’m just going by what you wrote – if I’ve misunderstood, then I’m sorry, but constructs such as ‘linked to a cult organisation’ and ‘malign influence of political moonies’ led me to understand that you had little time for ‘Sence about Science’ itself…
Saturday 9 January 2010 at 17:46 UTC
Sense about Science is a sectarian organisation that serves as a front for the Furedi cult. While some of the work done by Sense about Science is worthwhile, the organisation’s influence in the science communication community is on the whole negative. What we have with Sense about Science is science in the service of anti-democratic political ideology and corporate interests.
Saturday 9 January 2010 at 17:49 UTC
Ah, gawd, now I’ve got to go away and read up all about this Furedi cult… Bugger. Just when I thought that I was beginning to get on top of this thing called life…
Saturday 9 January 2010 at 18:08 UTC
There is no shortage of damning material in the public domain on the RCP and its progeny. When it comes to the Science Media Centre and Sense about Science, you could start here.
Saturday 9 January 2010 at 18:57 UTC
I’ve been watching this unfold partly because I recently discovered the Royal Institution is a great place to meet for coffee in the West End. It’s a most expensively appointed, high tec-style bit of interior design in which nestles a nice caff. Always almost empty, which made it even more congenial to me. But I did wonder what on earth they were thinking: all that money spent for such little evident return.
Then I learnt about the intriguing financial car crash involving the Baroness Professor (Ruritanian, no?).
And now you reveal this angle! It just gets better. If I were you I’d be pitching a long piece on the whole saga to one of the Sunday mags.
Saturday 9 January 2010 at 20:52 UTC
Gareth – Do we really need further exposés of the RCP network in the qualities? True, it would help if the authors of same did not have a credibility deficit (e.g., Zac Goldsmith), but it’s not a question of simply informing the public about the antics of the Furedi cult. What’s needed is to drive a wedge between the hardcore cultists and those who think it acceptable to break bread with them.
Now I have no idea about the core philosophical beliefs of Susan Greenfield, though I suspect that narcissism is her guiding principle. Greenfield is one of a number of high-profile scientists and policymakers who work closely with the Furedi cult. Maybe they regard the latter as no more than a tool to be used for their personal betterment. This may have short-term benefits for them, but, mark my words, they will come unstuck eventually. Poison doesn’t discriminate.
Saturday 9 January 2010 at 21:28 UTC
I meant the story as a whole rather than just the Furedi link. It’s just a great tale of hubris that seems to sum up the noughties.
But I wouldn’t overestimate how informed people are about the whole Furedi thing. As you know I had no idea as to who was behind Sense on Science and I like to think I’m reasonably well-informed. The RCP, etc. have done a very impressive job of smuggling themselves into all sorts of places. And this fact probably needs shouting about a lot more. So keep up the good work!
Monday 11 January 2010 at 11:53 UTC
Seconded – the first and only dissenting voice I’ve heard was Fishpaste’s, and his article (last week on the Guardian website I think) was so full of ad hominem attacks and scaremongering non-sequiturs I just dismissed it. If SAS are not whiter than white it’ll be news to nearly everybody, I think.