Ouch, that’s a painful oxymoron, I hear you cry! This seems to be the direct in which the RSC is heading – The Free Radical has highlighted some a number of examples of this corporate approach.
 
A prime example is the requirement to conform to “corporate guidelines” when using the RSC logo. Of course, it goes without saying that the logo shouldn’t be modified and respect is due – but being constrained by layers and layers of regulation about colours and distances seems counter-productive. Considering most of the public associate the RSC with the Royal Shakespeare Company, you would have thought the Royal Society of Chemistry would be falling over itself to try and get the brand out there, not isolating it behind layers of guidelines.
 
Perhaps more alarming, we’ve been told that conferences will only be supported if they make a profit or at least breakeven. This came up repeatedly at the GA and the last CBiD meeting. Clearly cost minimisation is important, but as a charity surely we should be considering the benefits and whether the event advances the chemical sciences not profitability?
 
I don’t want to come across as simply being a naysayer. I think the RSC is brilliant – the society does a huge amount of great work at the coalface, through the interest groups, local sections and other member groups. However, as with so many corporations, there are ever increasing layer of bureaucracy and ‘oversight’ – and some of these latter now seem to be little more than glorified rubber-stamping committees. But perhaps this can be saved for another blog post (probably with a title relating to Ivory Towers).
 
Another thing that the RSC now seems to have in common with a lot of corporations is an apparent issue with pension liabilities. I haven’t seen this talked about too much – but a quick look at the P&L in the Trustees Report 2009 shows a recognised expenditure of £10.1 million to cover actuarial losses on the defined benefit pension scheme (compared to £2.9 million spent on membership activities). I’m not saying this is wrong, but just putting it out there as something we perhaps should be discussing.
 
In closing, I’ve signed up as a volunteer to a charity – I give my time freely to help achieve our society’s aims. Bureaucracy, committees and other corporate apparatus are getting in the way of what the society does best – advancing the chemical sciences in the world. We all agree professionalism is important – but we can be professional without being corporate.

Since starting an active Younger Member Network (YMN) in the Liverpool area in 2008, myself and a small group of volunteers have formed a committee and have successfully managed to run a number of events for our younger members, including pub quizzes, a careers event and a ‘fun’ scientific lecture for example. Prior to our existence there was very little going on in the area for YMs and so we hope to continue building on this in the future and are grateful for the support we have already received from the RSC.
 
I am writing this blog entry in the hope of starting a discussion regarding the funding of RSC YMNs in the UK. I think the current system is unfair - a bit of a postcode lottery, so I would like to make a few proposals to start things off and to invite as many readers as possible to comment.
 
YM reps are expected to run several events per year in their local areas aimed at YMs. These are defined as everyone under the age of 35 but anyone is welcome to come along. This is quite a large group of people within a Local Section (LS), approximately 25 % for example. The main problem when it comes to running these events is funding; even the most basic don’t come cheap.
 
So where do we get our funding from? The main source is from a Local Section committee and not directly from RSC HQ. We also ask members to contribute to certain events but this is not possible for everything (who’s going to pay to attend a lecture or careers event?). So all is fine if your Local Section supports YMNs and in some parts of the country this works very well. However, some Local Sections offer less financial support for YMNs and in some sections there is not even a YMN to start with!
 
Local Sections receive £2.50 per member annually, so logic would suggest this is spent equally amongst the different age groups based on percentage of members. In general, this is not the case.
 
There are many reasons for this; high on the list is the perception that YMs are just a bunch of students who want to get drunk (no offence to students, there’s nothing wrong with enjoying a student lifestyle!), when in reality we are a diverse mix of undergrads, postgrads, young academics, industrialists and teachers etc., so we want more than just a bar crawl for our money!
 
What does a typical event cost I hear you say; surely it’s not that much?
Well, having just run a well attended (~80 people) careers event on a shoestring of just under £300, this is what the money was spent on: 1.5 h University lecture theatre hire at reduced rate and a small buffet. So for something like a networking mixer meeting for young professionals, held in a hotel with food and drink, you are looking at spending >£700. So my point is, these events can be expensive and having the extra hurdle of applying for funding from LS committees who have to vote on it doesn’t help. If the event involves alcohol then it is almost certain it will not receive many votes!
 
So what am I trying to achieve by writing this blog?
1)     Raise awareness amongst the YM community about how their events are funded (or not, as the case may be).
2)     To make things equal nationally, I propose that we receive funding directly from RSC HQ based on the number of younger members in our area.
3)     To make the RSC appreciate the cost of running a YMN event and the spare time donated by volunteers to make these possible.
 
Gone are the days when you could run everything in a University department for free!
 
I can understand that the RSC does not want to dish out vast sums of money to just anybody, but I’m sure with the right set-up and a few ground rules and safeguards, those YMNs that are already established and well-run deserve their own source of funding which is awarded in a fairer way.
 
Finally, the RSC should remember that YMs are the Chemists of the future and the future of the society will rely on their continued membership. With many members questioning whether they see a benefit from their membership fee, it’s more important than ever to offer them value for money during their first years with the RSC.

I look forward to hearing from everyone, in particular other YM reps. and their thoughts on this topic!
Claire
more...

Firstly, can I put a general call out to all readers of this blog to submit nominations for the various RSC awards available this year!
 
Secondly, sorry for the awful pun! But this is an issue that was discussed by the younger members forum at the GA, and highlighted by no less than Prof. Charles Stirling, FRSC FRS in a letter published in the December 2010 (once the issue is placed in the archive on the RSC website, I'll link in! It's been replaced by the January issue already!!) issue of RSC News. In both his letter and our meeting we discussed the lack of awards for the voluntary members of the RSC, who put in so much time and effort promoting chemistry in their own unique ways. There are scientific, industrial and educational awards, but where are the awards for the volunteers?
 
Neville Reed answered Prof. Stirling’s letter by stating that the Nyholm Prize and the Inspiration and Industry Award partially cover this area, although perhaps are not properly advertised as doing so. So let’s see exactly how these awards are advertised (bear in mind this category of “Outreach” was only set up as a response to Prof. Stirling)?
 
Nyholm Prize for Education: The Nyholm Prize for Education recognises a major national or international research or innovation contribution to the field of chemical science education.
Inspiration and Industry Award: The Inspiration and Industry Award is recognise the contribution of an individual in industry to the outreach, promotion or teaching of the chemical sciences.
 
So the industry one looks okay but the Nyholm? Certainly it is not been marketed as an outreach award, rather an award for those outstanding chemistry teachers at all levels (which is fine!).
 
So at the GA, we enquired about a new award, specifically to recognise the contributions of young volunteers. I’ve been told we need to get a proposal together for consideration by the MQB and possibly Council, so here it goes:
 
In a similar vein to the young scientific awards, which recognise outstanding contributions by scientists under a certain age from all the disciplines of chemistry, an award should be created to recognise a young person who has made a significant contribution to the promotion of chemistry and/or catered for the developmental needs of the modern professional chemist. Unlike other awards, the recipient should not be making a career out these activities (for example working in education, consulting or careers services etc.) but rather should be developing and initiating new schemes on a voluntary basis. My proposed criteria are:

• Open to everyone, under the age of 35.
• Candidates are permitted to nominate themselves.
• A specific project must be named as the key justification for the award, although other contributions may be mentioned in support of the applicant.
• The impact of the project, rather than how it was funded, is the key criterion. (By this I mean non-RSC projects that promote chemistry/skills development for chemists are eligible)
• The candidate’s critical role in the specific project must have been entirely voluntary in nature.
• A one page supporting statement, addressing the selection criteria.
• Winner to be selected by a panel made up of members of the MQB and the YMF.

 
I’d like to open this to the floor for discussion and refinement. Am I wrong to specify “younger” members? Do we want to identify exceptional projects or exceptional people? Individual prizes or to groups?
 
I’d also like to encourage those younger members out there who know of someone, or are themselves, doing fantastic work for the RSC for both the Nyholm and I&I awards. Since these are the best the RSC can offer at present, we should get our names in the hat! Personally I know of two or three people whom I’ll be nominating!!
 
Please, please, please give me your ideas. I will then take them on up the chain of command and see if we can’t get a new award for the men and womenon the frontlines!

T. F. R.

UNESCO International Year of Chemistry 2011

Funnily enough Dave, while you’ve been typing.......

Members of the YMF have been working tirelessly on our plans for next year’s International Year of Chemistry.

more...

On the 20th of October 2010, the YMNs of Manchester, Liverpool and Northern Ireland came together to host the inaugural Younger Members’ Symposium. This fantastic achievement was the result of over 1000 hours volunteer time spread out over a year of preparation and planning. The full details of the preparations and the results are detailed in this report (see attachment). In summary, the event was an overwhelming success, with over 150 delegates from 5 countries and all levels of academia and industry represented. Feedback from the event, from delegates, invited speakers (who are no strangers to symposia) and sponsors was incredibly positive.

This was despite the considerable challenges faced (including investigations for fraud and money laundering as well as a venue change two weeks prior to the event!).

As with all new events, there are always teething problems. In this case however, some of these problems would have been avoided if the event had been adequately supported by the paid staff of the RSC. At the recent RSC general assembly, the question on my lips was why? Why wasn’t it supported?

WHY… were we unable to use the RSC website to host the conference webpages? Apparently this is because we would have to comply with the RSC’s corporate guidelines for its website. That’s fine, but if the official website of the RSC cannot accommodate the needs of its members, well I feel it has a big problem (and I’ll save the post on the God awful clunky-ness of the RSC site in general for another time).

Thankfully one of the YMS committee is a computational chemist and a tech-wizz to boot, and very kindly designed and mastered the webpage for us free of charge. Next time, we’ll save him the hassle and just hire a design company to do it for us, and simply bill the RSC for it. A complete waste of member’s subscriptions, but if we want a professional site (although, man did our guy do a good job) and the RSC can’t provide it, they should damn well pay for it!

WHY… could we not use the RSC’s RBS Worldpay service to take our registration fee? You know the service that so readily takes your subscriptions each year? Well apparently to use that to run an event on behalf of the RSC would have a cost associated with it. Well what doesn’t? In fact, using Paypal for the YMS cost us less money than using the RSC’s established payment method. Surely that’s not right? The RSC are paying for this service anyway, surely they should be able to fix it so that it is by far and away the cheapest and easiest option for members?

WHY…. Is one of the world’s largest scientific publishing houses not be able to print off a few hundred conference books? Answer: because the RSC outsources most of its marketing printing to another company.

Fine, so WHY… couldn’t the YMS printing be similarly outsourced? Corporate guidelines apparently. I never saw a copy of these guidelines; we didn’t have the time to waste on waiting for them. Still, I’ve published a few papers and written a thesis. Hell, I’ve enjoyed the fun that is re-formatting a rejected paper for another journal! We even have people on the YMS committee familiar with the nuances of an FDA submission, the plain English of patent applications and the joys of EU legislation. We can handle a few measly guidelines. Trust me.

WHY…did the paid members of RSC staff at event not support it’s volunteers? While happy to take advantage of the chance to recruit new members (and not have to pay registration fees) they we less keen to offer an extra pair of hands. In fairness, we didn't ask them to , but then again, in fairness we didn't think we'd have to.

WHY... when we asked for 300 freebies did we get offered 100? With registered delegates nearing the 200 mark, that offer was about as useful as an underwater hairdryer.

Finally WHY…am I writing this….. Why is this the first blog from the Younger Members Forum? Two reasons really:

Firstly….. in case you haven’t noticed, I’m incensed (and I’m not alone). The failure of a member’s organisation to support it’s own members, in fulfilling it’s own road-map is nothing short of disgraceful. This is particularly the case with younger members; our flame burns hot and bright, but can easily be extinguished. Richard Pike – you have mail.

Secondly… and far more importantly. The event actually took place in spite of this lack of support.

Better still it took place very successfully! This was an event run for young scientists by young scientists, and while some of the paid RSC staff don’t appear to stand by their tagline of “chemists provide solutions” the RSC’s hard working volunteers certainly do!

In fact, this event was a testament to the excellent work of the RSC YMN reps who, as I type, are working tirelessly to promote chemistry in more ways than you (or at least the paid staff of the RSC) can imagine.

So for the next YMS (and there will be a next YMS) will these improvements come about? Will you, the consumer, get the symposium you deserve? Watch this space....

T.F.R.