PJ Online | PJ Letters: The Society

I write in dismay at the decision of the Council to end public access to the Society's museum and all its educational work in the community (PJ, 20 October, p579). What a volte-face by the Council! Three years ago the Council approved significant funding for consultants to advise on much needed improvements for the location and display of the museum in Lambeth, indeed to the extent of total architectural reorganisation of the entrance foyer and the mezzanine floor. As recently as the Annual Review 2000, p11, the Council had the temerity to congratulate itself on the statement that "The Society's museum has displays covering the whole history of British pharmacy on four floors of the Lambeth building and opens to members and the public throughout the year. During 2000 the museum launched a lively public events programme and two special exhibitions aimed at bringing its fine collections to a wider audience. Over 3,400 visitors signed up for guided tours, an impressive 270 per cent increase on 1999."

I can only describe the current Council as a philistine lot who, in Oscar Wilde terms, appear to know the price of everything and the value of nothing. I guess my former Council colleagues will discern a twinkle in my eye but I assure them it is tempered by quite a steely glint.

I wonder if this museum debacle will inspire the membership to demand greater transparency in the Council's budgeting and setting of priorities for the allocation of resources? I appreciate the commercial sensitivity of the budget and its primary use as a management tool, but a balance with transparency should be struck.

I have read with admiration the letters of the correspondents who have written so far. Their letters are an excellent exposition of the value of the museum in historical and philosophical terms, quite apart from its proven public relations worth. The Council would do well to note the seniority and standing of such eminent writers who have each contributed so much to the profession in their various ways and are fully cognisant of the workings of Lambeth. That a group of this importance have put pen to paper so forthrightly should inspire the Council seriously to reconsider its position before the membership as a whole registers its disapproval by opposing any necessary amendment to the Byelaws (Section XXVI, paragraph 1).

I note that all the Council's statements on this issue are comprised of opinion. However, opinion is, after all, only opinion. After 21 years serving on the Council I am acutely aware how easy it is to express an opinion, and to counter opinion, but how difficult it is to back it with logical argument and factual support. As a profession we are well accustomed to the Government's demand for evidence-based proposals. The Council has singularly failed to quantify its opinion that the museum budget should be severely cut by two thirds, merely backing it with meaningless platitudes.

The President has said that we need to harness our resources for the profession's future, including modernisation of the statutory framework, implementing a programme of continuing professional development, and the development of clinical governance. All are possibly laudable, but meaningless without the budget detail. Publication of the allocation of resources to the various proposals will enable the membership, including me, to judge whether the Council has assessed its priorities in any reasonable way such that the museum has become so undervalued.

I am reminded of the considerable funding that was expended on "The New Age" and wonder whether the benefits set against the costs have ever been recognised, or indeed understood by the membership. Does the Council now envisage another similar series of projects where the cost/benefit is solely a matter of opinion?

So, Mr Treasurer, let us have some hard facts. Provide for us all a statement setting out the relevant income and expenditure. What is the amount in figures of the cut and its percentage? What effect will this have on staffing levels? What will be the reaction of the museum's curator, Caroline Reed, whose enthusiasm, dedication and input was more than impressive when I was Treasurer? We must not lose staff of this calibre. Please detail what the saving is to be spent on.

The Council cannot expect the membership to accept such significant proposals without serious questions being raised. The proposals should have been accompanied by a substantial statement of the financial background and perhaps then we would all have understood, and even possibly supported, the Council's decision. Its arguments on the future of the museum, however, will have to be extraordinarily sound if it is ever to receive my support and, I suspect, that of a majority of the profession.

T. G. Booth
Past President and Past Treasurer
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

Core activities

From Mr I. M. Caldwell, FRPharmS

Museums are places one can relate to or not, depending on one's preference. The Council's announcement of the decision to retain our museum but to abolish its function together with the failure to publicise the decision to withdraw funding for the British Society for the History of Pharmacy (PJ, 20 October, p579) probably will not set many pulses racing with indignation. Peter Worling makes the telling point that the BSHP is an entity created by the Council in order to fulfil the obligations which the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has as the custodian of the profession's past. The question could be asked, "Is the history of our profession a core role for the Society?". Nick Wood elegantly made the point (PJ, 27 October, p597) that this is the case and referred to Section XXVI of the Byelaws.

On a more practical level, there are questions to be asked. Do the proposals mean that there are jobs at stake? If the answer is no then the prospect is that the currently efficient and dedicated museum team will have their motivation and self-esteem considerably diminished. If the answer is yes then it is possible that the Society's credibility will be so damaged that it will not be able to recruit or retain expert staff in future. If we are content to let our museum atrophy, what other functions will we downgrade?

What about the Society's other core activities? Are there areas where money could be saved? There was the decision to purchase a flat in the luxury block overlooking the Houses of Parliament at a cost of around £600,000, not including stamp duty, legal fees and furnishing, none of which has yet been quantified, as far as I know. In addition, there are annual management charges and local and water taxes, all of which have still to be determined.

It is rumoured that the flat has already appreciated in value. Unfortunately, this "profit" can only be realised if the flat is sold. The question must be asked whether or not participation in the London property bubble is a core role of the Society. What would have happened if the £600,000 had been left invested? We would have earned, say, roughly 5 per cent per annum on the £600,000. In other words we are £30,000 adrift in our income which together with the standing charges, could bring the total loss to the balance sheet to somewhere between £40,000 and £50,000 per annum. As for the headquarters building, this is currently undergoing extensive redevelopment. Design consultants were retained several years ago to propose methods of expanding the building at a cost of several million pounds but these plans were not taken forward. Proposals were accepted for a redeveloped foyer which was to incorporate a realistic museum area. These designs have not been implemented. Obtaining the best use of the headquarters building must be core business.

In the present political climate there can be no doubt that if the Society is to retain its registration and regulatory function then it must demonstrate among the members a form of practice accountability which is clearly seen to act in the interest of the public. This will cost money. Whether or not this cost should be borne exclusively by the profession is open to debate. It is obvious that it is prudent of the Society to direct its resources to this end while still fulfiling its obligations under the Charter and the Byelaws. It is equally obvious that we should be given good reasons for ditching our museum.

Ian Caldwell
Larkhall, South Lanarkshire

Has there been adequate debate about museum?

From Professor J. K. Crellin, MRPharmS

I first became acquainted with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's historical collections in the late 1960s when cataloguing artifacts in the Wellcome collections. The latter, because of their vastness, were essential primary sources for the historian; however, the Society's collections were equally indispensable, not because of their size, but for their range and quality built up partly through the judicious eye of Agnes Lothian Short. For many reasons the value of the collections for research and public education was not realised until the appointment of a professional curator (1984), after which the collections developed, albeit slowly, into an important museum with both public and scholarly faces.

Writing from Newfoundland, I am unclear what issues or long-term implications were raised when the Council took the "difficult decision" to end "public access and to cease educational outreach". Despite financial difficulties, it must be asked whether the decision can be reconciled with various policies and goals of the Society? Has adequate debate, within the Council and outside, centred on such considerations as:

The responsibility professional bodies have as caretakers of important collections, which are part of everyone's heritage?
The role a museum can have in public education about medicines? (If, as is suggested, the museum has only been involved in "giving public access to pharmacy's roots and history", then consideration might well be given to reorientating museum policies to harnessing, in the words of the President "our resources for the profession's future".)
The acknowledged important role that history (and the humanities in general) can play in understanding lay attitudes to health, and hence contribute to patient care?

Perhaps in the face of such a radical change in museum policy, that will undo 16 years or so of development, these and other issues should be openly addressed by the Council and the membership, especially as the Society plans its future role in health care.

John Crellin
Faculty of Medicine,
Memorial University of Newfoundland,
Canada

History gives us knowledge

From Mr D. W. Davidson, FRPharmS

It is with sadness and regret I feel I must add my contribution to the many critics of the curtailment of museum services.

As a third generation pharmacist the pride I have had in my profession was nurtured by the history of its achievements and aspirations over the years. The memorabilia at Lambeth have also allowed me to build a better picture of pharmacy as it was.

The mistakes and opportunities of the past allow us to have a better understanding of how we should go forward with pride and enthusiasm to the future, always conscious of the fact we must not follow current initiatives slavishly and be tied too closely to perceived popular roles for pharmacy.

Our history shows we must always be prepared to stand up and speak out, no matter how unpopular, when we feel this is appropriate and how would we be aware if we had not had the knowledge history gives us.

Douglas Davidson
Blairgowrie, Perthshire

Inappropriate short termism

From Mrs J. Leach, MRPharmS, and others

We write to express our extreme disappointment at decision of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Council to reduce financial support for the museum and the British Society for the History of Pharmacy (PJ, 20 October, p579). The case for retaining the present levels of support has been well made in these columns in recent weeks and has our support.

A former Prime Minister was frequently labelled as someone "who knew the cost of everything but the value of nothing" and it seems to us that the Council is seeking the same reputation.

Just as the important initiatives being undertaken by the Society to develop practice are crucial, so is recognition of the origins and developments of the profession which provide a secure foundation for the way forward.

We believe the Council decision shows the most inappropriate short termism and request this matter be reconsidered.

Joyce Leach
Bob Leach
David Jacques
John Barnett
Stourbridge, West Midlands

We cannot afford to lose the musem

From Mr D. K. Rayner, MRPharmS

May I add my voice to that of Nicholas Wood (PJ, 27 October, p597) regarding the proposed cutbacks in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's museum.

As one who has studied family history since 1973 I too value the contribution that the museum has made to such studies in my own case. It was found that two of my ancestors on a branch of my family tree — Horace Thorley Rayner and George Lancelot Rayner — had been pharmaceutical chemists in the Driffield area. The former emigrated to British Columbia in 1910 and died in Vancouver Island in 1960. The latter practised in Driffield for all his life, having a pharmacy at Middle Street South and dying in Hull in 1974.

Had my research started earlier I could — with the museum's help — even have met the Driffield relation. Unfortunately this never materialised except in the form of photographs of him and his pharmacy in 1910 and much written information which enabled present-day descendants to be located.

The help of the museum was invaluable. Staff searched the old Registers of Members and Premises and came up with a great deal of information which added to that which I had gleaned locally, particularly the movements of George Lancelot Rayner after he relinquished his pharmacy.

Such is a service which, alongside displays, we cannot afford to lose. Considering the staggering amount of money which must be needed to maintain our London headquarters, the amount spent on the museum must already be miniscule.

David Rayner
Wakefield, West Yorkshire

Intellectual and social vandalism

From Miss M. N. Duncan, MRPharmS

I have recently written to the President of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to complain about the budget cutbacks for the museum.

I have descibed the action as one of intellectual and sociological vandalism, for which I believe the Council has no mandate from the voting membership.

Even those who have no strong feelings about the work of the museum must feel dismayed and uneasy about an elected body which rides roughshod over its Byelaws and the adopted constitution of one of its organs.

I urge other members who feel strongly about our basic constitutional rights to write to the President and make their displeasure known.

Marilyn Duncan
London N12

Turning its back on its heritage

From Ms K. Arnold-Forster

I share with many pharmacists and members of the museum profession dismay at the recent decision of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Council to cut the museum budget to a level that will enforce effective closure of the main part of its public service and profile.

The Society's museum is not only one the oldest and most distinguished collections of its kind anywhere in the world but has, especially in recent years, been at the forefront of a revival of interest in specialist medical and related collections. In particular, it is hard to overstate the importance — and hence the irony of this decision — of the Society's role nationally in promoting new standards of professional care and management for similar medical museum collections, and in harnessing its impact as a powerful medium of communication about the pharmaceutical profession and its distinguished history.

For the Society to turn its back on such an important element of its heritage is, however, above all a loss to the profession. The museum has always belonged to the generations of pharmacists who have been largely responsible for its creation through donations and legacies over more than 160 years. Removing the museum from the public domain, and in effect reducing access even for members, diminishes the right of all pharmacists as well as the public to benefit from this unrivalled resource.

Kate Arnold-Forster
Oxford (former curator of the Society's museum)

Lost the plot

From Mr D. I. M. Simpson, FRPharmS

In my last leading article as editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal (PJ, 2 September 2000, p319), I wrote about the tension within the Royal Pharmaceutical Society between those intent on driving forward new areas of spending at all costs and those who had built up existing and worthwhile activities and wanted to see them maintained. I said that among the decisions to be made would be how much of the existing activity and infrastructure should be cut or curtailed in order to free resources for new activity, and I pointed out that an important consideration would be how much an existing activity could be cut without causing it irreparable damage. It was activities like the museum that I had in mind when I wrote that.

Now my worst fears are being realised by the decision of the Council that the museum should effectively be closed and its budget slashed. Access to the museum's collections is to be greatly reduced and the work needed to preserve and augment the collection cut back. The sad catalogue of good staff made redundant by the Society will surely be added to.

The Society used to know how to take care of its staff. Now it seems to have forgotten how. Odd this in a body that was set up to look after the interests of a particular group of workers. But the Society, with its recent decision to put regulatory matters first, seems to have forgotten about this, too.

After the management review forced through in a secret session of the Council in February 1998, the museum and library found themselves in the new Directorate of Public Affairs. I felt uneasy about this at the time. I did not feel that a department focusing heavily on the here and now would provide a suitable environment and the right kind of support for activities which were of a more measured and reflective nature. It looks as if my misgivings were well-founded.

Quite why this particular cut is necessary has never been explained. It is being made at the same time as massive increases in the retention fee (to pay for the Government's new regulatory agenda) are being proposed.

In my last leading article, I called for a formal review of the Society's finances to be set in train. That seems to be needed more than ever. And we might as well have a review of the effects of the (costly in more ways than one) 1998 management review and the current emphasis of Council policy while we are about it. With its catalogue of errors in recent years, the Council looks as if it has lost the plot.

Douglas Simpson
Beckenham, Kent

Access to York Place

From Mr F. M. Hickey, MRPharmS

Dr Gordon Drummond (PJ, 13 October, p509) asks why the Royal Pharmaceutical Society in Scotland did not participate in Edinburgh's "Doors Open" day. It has also been suggested to us in the past by the Edinburgh and Lothians branch of the Society that we should do this.

We are keen that both members and people outside the profession see as much as possible of the Society and its heritage in Scotland. Our problem with the museum is that we do not have the appropriate disabled access that would permit us to participate in an event such as "Open Doors".

Sadly, I do not see greater access being possible in the near future. Only this week Council announced that it is to end public access to the Society's museum in Lambeth from next year and cease educational outreach for this activity.

Dr Drummond should be assured, however, that we treasure the fittings from his brother's Grassmarket shop. The room containing them is regularly used by the Society in Scotland whenever we have functions or receptions at York Place and it always generates great interest. This year it has also been the final feature of a medical history walking tour in Edinburgh's New Town. The museum can, of course, always be viewed by any member of the Society or the public by prior arrangement.

Findlay Hickey
Deputy Secretary,
Scottish Department,
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

Previous Topic (Ramadan)
Next Topic (The President)
Send your letter to The Editor