It’s at a turning point, says Margaret Sharp

When we launched the House of Lords Committee on Science and Technology’s enquiry into heritage science early in 2006, we knew that we would be tackling a subject in which the arts and humanities overlap.

This should not in itself be a problem: science and technology contribute hugely to our experience of cultural heritage, not just through the development of new conservation strategies, but through the many new applications of information technology. However, what we quickly realised was that what we have called ‘heritage science’, the diverse range of scientific research that supports the heritage sector, was in danger of falling between two stools. Neither quite an ‘art’ nor a ‘science’, it appears to be suffering increasing neglect, to the extent that the UK’s long-standing reputation for excellence in the field is at risk.

We had to begin by getting back to basics. We took the view that our cultural heritage is a legacy left to us by our forebears, which we in turn have a duty to pass on to our descendants. That heritage is in large part composed of physical artefacts — buildings, works of art, books, landscapes — which exist but also change (degrade) over time. Even stone erodes! Conservation may be defined as a cautious approach to the management of this change.

Accessibility means degradation

Conservation of cultural heritage is thus important to current enjoyment and also contributes directly to the government’s sustainability agenda. Yet the Department for Culture, Media and Sport appears not to have grasped this. Not only is there no mention of sustainability or conservation in its departmental objectives or Public Service Delivery Agreements, but the Department has instead imposed upon the major museums and heritage organisations demanding targets for increasing public access.

We applaud the widening of public access, but the government has to realise that increased access means increased wear and tear: surface erosion, disfigurement from dust accumulation, flaking and cracking from fluctuating humidity and temperature, along with the risk of more immediate and catastrophic damage to precious objects.

The more you promote public access, the more you must invest in heritage science and in conservation.

In addition, heritage is a major and ongoing contributor to national wealth, through cultural tourism. It is estimated that the tourism industry provides employment for over two million people, some seven per cent of all employment; it generates at minimum five per cent of GDP. It is only common sense to invest in the scientific research and practical conservation that are essential if these economic benefits are to be maintained in the long term.

Government should lead

So this is our central recommendation: There needs to be leadership from the top. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) should adopt the need to conserve our cultural heritage for the benefit of future as well as existing communities as a fundamental departmental objective. This objective should then cascade down through the sector as a whole, in particular through funding agreements.

We see this as an essential prerequisite if the heritage sector – fragmented and under¬funded as it is – is to come together in developing a more coherent approach to scientific research and new technologies. In particular, we are anxious to see the sector develop a broad-based national strategy for heritage science. We would like to see this championed at departmental level by the newly-appointed DCMS Chief Scientific Adviser, and suggest that it might be coordinated administratively by English Heritage.

Bottom-up

We believe it is crucial that any such ‘strategy’ should not be a top-down bureaucratic exercise. Rather it should be built from the bottom up, by the ‘doers’ of heritage science, the researchers based in the conservation laboratories of major national museums or in our universities, and by the ‘users’ of that science – those who care for our heritage, such as conservators working in museums and galleries, or in non-governmental organisations such as the National Trust or Historic Royal Palaces. Only if they all participate in developing the strategy will priorities for research be identified, projects developed and collaborative teams put together.

If the strategy is to be successful, then the sector will need more resources. We also suggest that there should be a directed programme of research, funded jointly by the Research Councils, but also bringing in outside funding, which we see as essential to renewing the sector and attracting new blood into it.

We are at a turning-point. Science and technology present a host of exciting opportunities to the heritage sector. They must not be wasted.

Baroness Sharp chaired the Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into Science and Heritage