BRAINSTORM ON CONSERVATION SCIENCE ICCROM, Rome, 12-13 March 2012

REPORT

This meeting benefits from the financial support of the Canadian Conservation Institute

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 3

1. Context.............................................................................................................................. 3 2. Aim of the brainstorm...................................................................................................... 3 3. Selection of participants................................................................................................. 3 4. Preparation....................................................................................................................... 4 5. Methodology for the brainstorm ................................................................................... 4

II. KEY ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THE BRAINSTORM................................................................... 5 1. Definition of ‘conservation science’ ............................................................................. 5 2. Conservation science agenda- how is it decided ..................................................... 7 3. Dissemination: are results reaching the right audience(s)?....................................... 9 4. Evaluation & Monitoring ............................................................................................... 11 5. Indicators and data collections .................................................................................. 12

III. OTHER ISSUES TO BE INCLUDED IN THE FORUM............................................................ 15 Who are the players in conservation science, and what are their roles?................. 15 Current trends: ‘under-researched’ versus over-researched’ areas.......................... 15 Internationalisation ............................................................................................................ 16 Education & training, for scientists and for non-scientists ............................................ 17 Relevance to wider social priorities? .............................................................................. 17 Is conservation science responding to change?.......................................................... 18 Funding and Resources .................................................................................................... 18 Coordination ...................................................................................................................... 20

IV. CLOSING REMARKS BY PARTICIPANTS ........................................................................ 21

APPENDICES....................................................................................................................... 22 A. Short bios of participants.................................................................................................. B. Full texts of the contributions of the participants prior to the meeting .................. 22 C. Statement of expenses ....................................................................................................

3

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Context In 2013, ICCROM will organize a Forum on conservation science. The event will be collectively steered and funded by an international consortium of institutional partners. So far, 10 institutions have already confirmed their interest to join this consortium which will be fully established by the end of May. It will be responsible for the definition of the Forum content, format and of participants selection. It will also decide the date of the event, which is tentatively planned for September 2013. The Forum will serve as a platform for scientists and other conservation professionals to discuss the current role of science in conservation, its strengths and weaknesses, and future opportunities and threats. It will also explore the benefits of improving communication, scientific and conservation literacy, and interdisciplinary research in conservation, and ways to promote them. Through this critical analysis and reflection, the Forum will provide strategic orientations for future planning and policy making, create leverage for research funding and new collaborative ventures, promote greater inclusivity and ensure more effective integration between science and conservation practice.

2. Aim of the brainstorm Considering the breadth of the subject, the event will require a thorough preparation including data collection and preparatory research. This means that as soon as it is established the Consortium will have to engage in and plan this preparation work. In order to ease the path and assist the future Consortium in defining the specific themes of the Forum, ICCROM proposed to organize a brainstorm meeting with a small group of individuals, known for their broad experience and critical thinking in their specific fields, and who, as a group, cover a wide range of knowledge. The aim of the Brainstorm was to share visions on the current development of conservation research, scope trends and identify potential indicators and data which would support evidence of such trends. The outcome of the meeting will serve as a basis for subsequent discussion and planning by the Forum Consortium.

3. Selection of participants Thanks to the generous contribution of the Canadian Conservation Institute, it was possible to organize the Brainstorm promptly and to invite 12 participants to ICCROM, Rome on the 12 and 13 March 2012.

In selecting participants, ICCROM ensured a fair representation of professions: including scientists, conservators, art historians and archaeologists, managers, educators, related to both movable and immovable heritage. The countries represented included Brazil, Canada, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United States of America. Unfortunately, time and funding were too limited to ensure participation from Asia-Pacific or Africa. A list of participants and their short biographies are in an appendix.

4

4. Preparation In order to prepare a meaningful and stimulating agenda for the Brainstorm, the invited participants were asked to each prepare a list of what they consider to be the key issues in conservation science. They are all gathered in a document in the appendix, for information. From these texts, ICCROM attempted to capture issues raised by three or more participants. They are listed below:

� DEFINITION: What is 'conservation science'?

� PLAYERS: Who are the players, and what are their roles?

� CURRENT TRENDS: 'under researched' versus 'over researched' areas

� EVALUATION & MONITORING

� DISSEMINATION: Are results reaching the right audience?

� INTERNATIONALISATION

� EDUCATION & TRAINING, for scientists, and for non scientists

� CONSERVATION SCIENCE AGENDA: How is it decided?

� RELEVANCE TO WIDER SOCIETAL PRIORITIES

� RESPONSIVENESS TO CHANGE COORDINATION

� FUNDING & RESOURCES

� COORDINATION

� DATA COLLECTION ABOUT THE FIELD

5. Methodology for the brainstorm The first task of the Brainstorm was to examine the issues emerging from the contributions and to verify that no other major aspects had been overlooked. Participants then worked in teams of two to select from among the 13 issues a maximum of five that would be feasible to discuss during the timeframe of the meeting. In order to make their choice, participants had to consider two criteria: importance and complexity. The importance scale rated issues according to the importance to include them in the Forum (very important, medium, low). The complexity scale rated issues according to the need to explore them during the Brainstorm itself, in order to clarify and articulate them further (very complex, medium, low). Results were charted and discussed. The three issues which gathered the highest scores for both importance and complexity were:

� CONSERVATION SCIENCE AGENDA

� DISSEMINATION

� EVALUATION & MONITORING

The Brainstorm participants also agreed to address 2 other issues: � DEFINITION, as a first exercise, and in order to propose a working definition

of conservation science for the Forum;

� DATA COLLECTION ABOUT THE FIELD, to inform us about the current trends.

This was discussed at the end of the Brainstorm, in order to provide

orientations for the preparatory work prior to the Forum.

5

II. KEY ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THE BRAINSTORM In this section, the issues discussed during the brainstorm are presented, with, for each issue, proposals for what could be included in the Forum agenda. In the next section, (part III), the other ‘important’ issues which were identified but not discussed extensively during the Brainstorm are listed. For each, excerpts of participants’ contributions prior to the Brainstorm have been included. Finally, part IV includes some closing remarks by participants.

1. Definition of ‘conservation science’

► Considerations During the discussion, reference was made to the general definition of conservation science formulated during the 1999 Bologna meeting1: “All the critical and structured activities aimed at discovering new facts or collecting the existing literature through the application of scientific disciplines to the conservation of physical heritage.” However, in the years since this meeting, the conservation field has evolved. Our understanding of cultural heritage has widened, allowing for an ongoing reappraisal of what types of “science” can be usefully applied to its conservation. Participants also noted the emergence and increasing use of new terminology, such as “heritage science”. The group also discussed whether the focus of the Brainstorm should be limited to conservation science research. It concluded that the meeting should consider “conservation science” in general, to avoid excluding from the discussion non-research related, but nevertheless important conservation science activities such as routine investigation and other service provision. This consideration was also suggested for the Forum itself. In the context of the Forum, participants proposed “the application of science and technology to the conservation of cultural heritage” as a good working definition for conservation science. Throughout the discussion, an abiding theme was the range of activities that are included under the term “conservation science”, since there are at present ambiguities of intent within its practice. The group considered that this has resulted in a generally perceived imbalance between different types of activities. For example, the prevalence of technical and material studies (such as technical art history and archaeometric investigations) over other types of studies relevant to broader conservation issues is an abiding feature of the field and has been well documented. Nevertheless, knowledge of material composition and manufacture technique is fundamental to understanding the values and state of conservation of objects, and therefore an essential part of an overall conservation approach.

In the course of the discussions, another point was raised as to whether conservation science, as we defined it, is a global concept, or if it is still confined to the western world.

1 University Postgraduate Curricula for Conservation Scientists, Proceedings of the International Seminar, Bologna, Italy, 26-27 November 1999, ICCROM,

6

After this discussion on definition, one participant suggested the following formulation for the aim of the Forum, which was agreed by the group: “More relevant, effective science and knowledge transfer in the service of conservation”.

Excerpts of participants’ contributions prior to the Brainstorm

All SETI-based research areas are vital to support heritage interests. They include science

(physics, chemistry, biology, earth and environmental sciences, and mathematics and

computer science); engineering and technology (architecture, engineering, building science,

conservation, information science); and innovation. But complementary and cross-cutting

research is also necessary in the arts and humanities (social and political history, architectural

history and archaeology) and social sciences (physical geography, town planning, law,

economics and social studies) – based on the OECD’s Frascati Definitions, 1994. J. Fidler

What do we mean when we say “Conservation Science”?

In the world-wide Survey on SRC (Scientific Research in Conservation) launched by ICCROM in

1997, the following definition was adopted:

“All the critical and structured activities aimed at discovering new facts or collecting the

existing literature through the application of scientific disciplines to the conservation of

physical heritage.”

Studies where scientific disciplines (e.g. Biology, Chemistry, Physics, etc.) are applied together

with humanistic ones (History, Art History, Ethics, etc.) were considered in the Survey, while

purely humanistic studies were excluded.

Is this definition still valid and can it be adopted for the next Forum on Conservation Science?

M. Tabasso

What is conservation science? This question has been addressed many times but it still remains

vague. The Bologna forum came up with several components of what constitutes conservation science. But subsequently in actuality the subject seems more and more to amount to little more than scientific analysis of cultural heritage. Where are the boundaries

between conservation science, technical art history and archaeometry and is it important to define these inter-related subjects more precisely? (The journal Archaeometry, from which the name stems, is now including conservation science type papers which would never have been found there previously. And Studies in Conservation publishes much which is more technical art history. All very confusing!) In the UK the term Heritage Science is now being used extensively. Does matter ? (See the following topic.) N. Tennent

Definition of conservation science. Conservation or heritage science includes a broad range

of activities from what might be termed “technical studies” to characterize the materials,

structure, and fabrication of an object to broader investigations of material degradation and

aging, the development and testing of treatments and remediation strategies, and the

development or adaptation of analytical technologies to the study of cultural heritage. All

of these have validity in informing conservation decisions but too much emphasis is often

given to material identification at the expense of more far-reaching research that has the

potential for broader impact on the field. Better definition of critical needs and priorities

would lead to a more effective use of limited resources. J.M. Teutonico

► Suggestions for the Forum

• Consider the following definition for the Forum: Conservation science is the

application of science and technology to the conservation of cultural heritage

• Consider all types of sciences, including human and social sciences

• Ensure presence, viewpoints and participation from every region of the world

7

2. Conservation science agenda- how is it decided Or…how to develop a more relevant and effective conservation science agenda?

► Consideration During the discussions, one participant characterized the features of many current conservation science strategies as top down, science driven, insufficiently based on evidence, having insufficient end user integration, and incorporating insufficient horizon scanning (hence leading to duplication). Needs assessments - The primary step in achieving a more relevant conservation science agenda is to undertake better needs assessments. The identification of these needs is however not straightforward. Tools and methods for undertaking such surveys do exist, as used at governmental level, but these have not had widespread application in cultural heritage conservation. This stems from a general deficit of awareness about the options that are available, and how to utilize them.

Some participants argued that while certain needs are immediately explicit, others are less so. Explicit needs include improved knowledge and technologies leading to better tools, methods and materials for diagnosis, preventive conservation, remedial conservation interventions, and passive remedial options.

However, conservation also has a duty to address wider societal issues such as environmental and economic sustainability, social cohesion, and human wellbeing. The manner in which it can achieve this, and the specific needs associated with this are less clear and warrant further investigation. For example, there is a need for input from social sciences such as economics to help clarify and improve the role of conservation in benefiting the wider society.

Also, participants noted the necessity to address the needs of countries with lesser resources. Economic considerations, such as cost effectiveness, should be a priority for conservation science.

A potential output from the Forum could be a series of templates for how to undertake consultations in different contexts Strategy development: Influencing decision makers - Recent years have seen the development of national strategies for conservation science, for example in the UK, USA and more recently in Spain. A primary reason for this is to take a pro-active approach in convincing government of the need for conservation science, and the validity of allotting a larger portion of the available funding to this area.

A clearly defined strategy for conservation science that is well formulated on the basis of sufficient needs assessment should serve as a means to achieve unity of opinion on what is desired, and demonstrate that conservation science is self-organised. Moreover, a pro-active approach is necessary to achieve support for relevant activities, rather than let these decisions be taken by external parties.

The construction of a conservation science strategy at national or regional level, should reflect the economic realities of the context, and consider the needs within that specific context. In addition the benefits to the wider community should be clarified and highlighted.

8

There was also a question of whether it is feasible and effective to think in term of international/global strategy, as opposed to national or regional ones. Tools for needs assessment - A variety of consultation methods tools and data resources for surveying needs are already available in other fields. For example, the OECD map governmental spending on science. The OECD database may be a resource for data on government funding for cultural heritage. Other tools include established methods for horizon scanning (e.g. as developed by the UK Government Chief Scientist, Prof. David Fiske at Imperial College), and labour market research, which examines the “push and pull” in a particular sector to identify the number of trained operators needed. Participative processes for strategy development - By bringing the right combination of people together it is possible to start a process. This can be promoted on regional and national levels, or even at the level of an institution: Physical proximity (e.g. housing scientists and conservators in the same building) can play an important role in facilitating collaboration–reference was made to the case of CCI where a similar situation has existed for the last 40 years. Levels of administration - It is difficult to generalize as there is a wide difference in policy and administrative structures. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize different levels of administration (from international, national, to individual projects), and how policy is implemented at each of these. Quite often, the strategy developed at one level does not translate to others. The problem with middle down mechanisms is often that management is not responsive to policies that have been set. Consequently, individual projects may not reflect the overarching agenda. Scale - During the discussions, participants alluded at various times to the European Union and its role in the development of conservation science in the last 20 years. Some noted that within the EU the current model is “big is good”. However this is not necessarily the case, particularly in conservation, and quite often “big is bad”.

Excerpts of participants’ contributions prior to the Brainstorm

Priorities for conservation science. Is there too much emphasis on 'sexy' subjects and 'high art'

at the expense of other topics of greater urgency? N. Tennent

High quality research must involve end-user inputs at the start of the process (to ensure

projects are based on real-life situations) and also interpretation and knowledge transfer at

the end of the process so that end-users of research (many of them scientifically illiterate) can

gain widest benefit. J. Fidler

Question about the future time

The perspective of society on its cultural heritage is changing and this influences the questions

addressed to the conservation and conservation science fields: research priorities in the past

might not be priorities today. It seems that the active conservation treatments are no longer a

priority in term of scientific research is it because people are afraid about consequences or

responsibilities or is it because our society is facing new challenges? Is there any shared of

priorities for the next 20 years in the western countries?

Question about the space and culture

The implementation of a sustainable conservation policy takes into account the social and

economic issues to benefit all, so any conservation action should integrate wider objective in

order to promote sustainable development. For that purpose, they reconcile the protection

and development of the natural environment, economic development, and social progress.

9

This might lead to a very different conservation strategy from one place to another and also

very different results in term of preservation of the artefact. In consequence is it possible to

establish international standard for conservation? Should we always consider any

conservation treatment or strategy on efficiency of the results on the cultural heritage itself or

should we always balance that with the impact on the community, its economy and

development? If yes, what could be the indicators, and what role could play conservation

science in that field. B. Lavédrine Relevance of conservation science research (csr) to any new political or social priorities. Does

csr demonstrate strong relevance to at least one new priority, such as sustainability, e.g.

carbon footprint reduction? Can we do more?

Relevance of csr to any traditional political or social priorities. Is current csr relevant to current

heritage issues as understood by government?

Effectiveness of csr in answering new questions. Are we answering the questions posed in the

most effective way. Do we even think much about being effective? S. Michalski

► Suggestions for the Forum…

Investigate needs assessment tools and methodologies – Learning from other

fields

Illustrate how and when the conservation science agenda can meet the needs

of cultural heritage (current and future)

Explore how the conservation science agenda can address matters of interest to

the wider society: sustainability, respect for the natural environment, economic

development, social progress

3. Dissemination: are results reaching the right au dience(s)?

► Consideration The groups discussed the issue of dissemination from various points of view:

Who are the different audiences - The conservators-restorers, the managers and decision-makers, the other scientists from other fields; some participants also suggested the general public. Related to the type of audiences are the media used:

Which dissemination media - Participants discussed different types of dissemination pathways. They differentiated between those that are “passive” in terms of the interaction between information providers and users, such as journals and publications, and those that are “active” for example workshops for current users of conservation science results, or education programmes for future scientists or future conservators-restorers. One of the main challenges of dissemination is that the results of conservation science research are often published in journals that are not read by conservators. There are various reasons for this. One is that the science evaluation structures (university and governmental) demand publications in Journals that have high impact factors, but which are unrelated to conservation. Conservation science journals have very low impact factors. Is there any way to make them more credible to the mainstream?

10

Also, the cost of downloads is prohibitive for those outside institutions with relevant subscriptions. Languages - The issue of language was considered from 2 points of view, one related to the language of publication, English, Spanish, German, Japanese, etc. How much connections and exchanges happen in fact? The other issue is related to the terminology and the complexity of the language, and the fact that scientific publications are primarily written for scientific peers rather than practical conservators. There is also a general lack of practical focus in the discussion of research findings, and as such conservators do not see the relevance of this information to their activities. Some participants alluded to the lack of scientific literature reviews in conservation as a major weakness.

Quality criteria for results dissemination – It may be useful to discuss and develop common criteria to enhance the quality and relevance of the dissemination.

For example, participants noted that in larger research projects, publications are divided up between research groups, leading to a scattering of results.

Excerpts of participants’ contributions prior to the Brainstorm Define and establish a venue for conservation science, such as a regular conference or space

in an existing one, publication/dissemination strategy, Forum, etc. specifically dedicated to

professional exchanges between practicing conservators (in private practice as well as

working in institutions) and conservation scientists. A. de Tagle

All heritage science research should be subjected to the ROAMEF protocol: having a

published rationale with stated objectives; and being appraised by peers through monitoring,

final evaluation and end-user feedback. The results of heritage science need better

knowledge transfer and exploitation: project outputs ought to have dissemination strategies

with a hierarchy of published forms (e.g., from academic papers in peer-reviewed journals

through to free technical advice leaflets and newspaper articles). All heritage science

authors should contribute to international publication abstraction systems (e.g., AATA, BCHIN

etc). J. Fidler The dissemination of results of scientific research:

Many international and national meetings are organised on different topics but, frequently, it

is rather expensive to attend, at least for young and free-lance people.

There is a lack of scientific magazines dedicated to conservation of cultural heritage which

have good “impact factor” in university environment and which, at the same time, regularly

reach conservation people. M. Tabasso

Science communication: scientific knowledge and information are not communicated in a

clear, accessible, and usable way to non-scientist decision makers and professionals, or to the

public (“science aimed at scientists”). This includes language/terminology barriers, availability

beyond academic journals and conferences, scattered information, unclear relevance or

applicability to practice, etc. […]

Insufficient identification or recognition of actual (conservation) research needs due to the

lack of, or poor communication between science and conservation professionals (and other

stakeholders), as well as to insufficient or inadequate criteria and approaches to assess

research needs (often top-down and scientist-driven; little evidence-based and end-user

integration). [...]

Limited access to and use of research outputs by conservation professionals due to insufficient

or inappropriate dissemination mechanisms and channels, as well as to limited scientific

11

literacy among research users (“science is too complicated, leave it to scientists”). J.L. Pedersoli

Publication and knowledge transfer. There are still only a small number of peer-reviewed

journals specialized in conservation. The result is that much conservation science is published

in conference proceedings (frequently without peer-review) or in scientific journals that are

not read by the majority of conservation practitioners. While it is important that conservation

scientists communicate with their peers and retain their professional standing through

publication in scientific journals, we must ensure that the results of heritage science are

interpreted and disseminated to the broader conservation community in order to advance

practice. J.M. Teutonico

► Suggestions for the Forum…

Encourage a critical examination of the various issues above

Invite the different stakeholders, including editors of conservation science

journals and publications

Explore strategies for effective dissemination

4. Evaluation & Monitoring

Participants preferred to re-phrase this issue as: “How to evaluate the relevance of science and technology applied to conservation”

► Consideration

Participants noted that conservation science is often criticized for lacking relevance to issues of concern within conservation, focusing instead on issues that primarily concern conservation scientists. It is important therefore to take stock of the situation, and assess the degree to which conservation science is relevant to needs of the conservation field. To this end a historical overview is needed of past and present successes and failures. In particular, we should examine the extent to which conservation science has influenced decision making in conservation. To undertake a performance evaluation of an activity (in this case conservation science), its desired outcomes need to be established, along with the likely indicators of those outcomes. The primary goal of conservation science is to provide information, methods and tools to improve the conservation of cultural heritage. Starting from this primary goal, a series of sub-ordinate outcomes which contribute towards its achievement can be identified:

• Improved practice • Better communication • Awareness of new information • Useable information (implementable and affordable tools) • Useful input of conservation science in all phases of a project, including

maintenance and monitoring

12

Existing models for evaluation are available, and the experiences from these could be drawn upon (CHRESP EU, Government audits). Moreover, efforts should be made to establish methods and tools by which such evaluations can be made efficiently, and repeated in the future. Some participants also noted that external formal assessment procedures are missing from our field. These are necessary not only at the conclusion of a project to assess its immediate outcome but also as a monitoring process, e.g. over 10 years.

Excerpts of participants’ contributions prior to the Brainstorm Better information about existing national and international funding sources in the field as well

as more rigorous evaluation of the outcomes of conservation research would be extremely

helpful in making the case for improved funding levels. J.M. Teutonico Effectiveness of csr in answering new questions. Are we answering the questions posed in the

most effective way. Do we even think much about being effective? S. Michalski Another important practice to encourage is that regular monitoring is carried out after each

conservation treatment, to assess the condition of the treated object in order to better plan

maintenance interventions. M. Tabasso

Research and science should foresee monitoring activities of the results obtained. Important

and already done in the museum field, but also needed for monuments and sites. M. Martelli Castaldi Strategic role of monitoring in Conservation Science. M. Matteini

► Suggestions for the Forum…

Provide a state of the art: conservation science versus conservation practice

Explore tools and methods for undertaking evaluations

Consider examples of good practice (or on the contrary, failures) to

demonstrate the relationship of conservation science to conservation practice

5. Indicators and data collections Indicators and data which could be collected to provide evidence on the issues suggested for the Forum

► Indicators within current practice

The following could serve as indicators for direct assessment of the degree of transfer of conservation science knowledge into the practical field, and whether that knowledge is being correctly interpreted and implemented:

- Specific aspects of current practice in different areas of conservation such as the application of control limits for environmental parameters (RH, T); the use of acid free tissue; lime based grouting materials; light measurement methods.

13

- Specific projects (particularly those with a technological or information based outcome that would affect conservation practice) funded by grant giving bodies such as the EU.

In addition to this indirect information could be gathered from

− The number and type of patents for new conservation technologies. − The number and type of standards developed for application in conservation

► Indicators within dissemination pathways Direct dissemination - Higher education is one of the major routes by which current conservation science knowledge can be communicated to new generations of conservators. Therefore an evaluation of conservation science curricular content in higher education conservation training programmes would provide a valuable indication of the extent to which up to date scientific information, technologies and methods are reaching new graduates in conservation. Attendance at conferences and workshops is a valuable means by which conservation professionals stay abreast of new developments in the field. It would be informative to survey the conservation science content of workshops and conferences taking place, as well as the speaker profiles, audience profiles, attendance numbers, location, and frequency. Published literature - Publications are the most prevalent vehicle for the dissemination of scientific information. Moreover, the published literature is a readily available data resource for examination. However, the issue is how to extract useful information from this resource without the task becoming too large. To this end, the group considered which specific indicators associated with the published literature that could be used. Suggestions are as follows:

• Keyword searches: it is possible to follow the use of specific terms in the literature over time (e.g. through databases such as the Web of Science, or more simply with Google NGramm).

• Spread of publications: examine a few selected subject areas to determine where conservation science findings relating to these are being published.

• Journal impact factor ratings: how well does conservation compare to other areas? Which other areas have similar publication profile to conservation science?

• Conservation science journals and conference publications: examine the circulation and readership, and also the content and authorship of papers published. For example, the University of Amsterdam has conducted an ongoing survey of Studies in Conservation to assess type of studies being published (e.g. if related to materials and manufacture techniques, deterioration, or conservation treatments), and also the number and profile of co-authors.

• Conservation science institutions: where do their staff publish, and who do they publish with?

• AATA, BCIN, ICCROM library. What is the current use of these services? What are the most popular searches/downloaded information? For a few selected subject areas, what range of conservation science content do they cover? ICCROM library: level and user profiles for document requests (who, where, what)?

14

Communication beyond language barriers - The level of awareness of literature produced by other language groups should be assessed, for both authors and the readership. This could be done by examining the composition and use of online libraries in languages other than English (e.g. ISCR, C2RMF), in terms of their hits and downloads. Further evidence of communication between different language groups could also be obtained by surveying the level of citations in other languages within conservation science publications. Communication between disciplines - Evidence of collaborative research practices can also be gathered by examining author profiles to assess the spread of disciplines represented within groups of co-authors. Communication to non-scientists: for a few selected subject areas, evaluate the accessibility of phrasing and terminology used in publications. Communication to the general public - What is the level of conservation science publication in other published materials for general consumption, such as newspapers and magazines? Tools for gathering data on indicators - Surveys are a useful means of gathering information from large groups of individuals, however they suffer from bias, and therefore a degree of caution should be exercised in the interpretation of their results. While Monkey surveys are attractive in that they are relatively easy to implement, and can reach large numbers of respondents, nevertheless they are not necessarily representative of the population. Therefore it would be important to seek the advice of sociologists specialized in survey techniques on how to construct a non biased survey.

Excerpts of participants’ contributions prior to the Brainstorm Most interestingly, the CCI was hiring scientists in the 70s but did not then call them

conservation scientists.) The total world-wide number of conservation science practitioners

(those in full-time employment as conservation scientists) has never been quantified but has

been fairly static, I suggest, for several decades. However the amount of conservation science

research (by Masters and PhD students has increased enormously.) Does this give a distorted

view of the health of the discipline? The amount of funding for conservation science has never

been quantified. Should an attempt be made to do this in order to demonstrate the relatively

small amount of international resources for this branch of science? Do we get value for money

from EC and national research council funding in the form of conservation research grants?

How much conservation science is 'structural' in terms of national, or institutional

organisations? How well does published conservation science represent the priorities of

different subjects and how has this changed over the years (for example the move away from

treatment development)? Gael de Guichen published a survey of what conservation science

had been published, by whom, etc in a specific period. This has never been followed up -

should it be? N. Tennent

In 1998-1999, ICCROM undertook a further survey (supported by the EC) on how best to

prepare conservation scientists, in European countries and to evaluate the feasibility of a

training curriculum for conservation scientists. These issues were the subject of an international

meeting, organised in Bologna in November 1999. The conclusions of the meeting resulted in

the preparation and approval of the ‘Bologna Document’, which defined the role and

professional profile requirements of conservation scientists. M. Tabasso

15

III. OTHER ISSUES TO BE INCLUDED IN THE FORUM

Who are the players in conservation science, and wh at are their roles?

Excerpts of participants’ contributions prior to the brainstorm High quality research must involve end-user inputs at the start of the process (to ensure

projects are based on real-life situations) and also interpretation and knowledge transfer at

the end of the process so that end-users of research (many of them scientifically illiterate) can

gain widest benefit. J. Fidler

The total world-wide number of conservation science practitioners (those in full-time

employment as conservation scientists) has never been quantified but has been fairly static, I

suggest, for several decades. However the amount of conservation science research (by

Masters and PhD students) has increased enormously. N. Tennent

What do we mean when we say “Conservation Scientist”?

In 1998-1999, ICCROM undertook a further survey (supported by the EC) on how best to

prepare conservation scientists, in European countries and to evaluate the feasibility of a

training curriculum for conservation scientists. These issues were the subject of an international

meeting, organised in Bologna in November 1999. The conclusions of the meeting resulted in

the preparation and approval of the ‘Bologna Document’, which defined the role and

professional profile requirements of conservation scientists.

“A Conservation Scientist (CS) today can be defined as a scientist with a degree in one of the

natural, physical and/or applied scientific disciplines and with further knowledge in

conservation (ethics, history, cultural values, historical technologies, past and present

conservation technologies and practice, specific scientific aspects, etc.) which enables

him/her to contribute to the study and conservation of Cultural Heritage within an

interdisciplinary team”. M.Tabasso Better collaboration between Conservation Scientists and Conservator-Restorers

There is a strong need of better coordination in the actions of both professions, to strengthen

common activities for cultural heritage, to introduce the concept of co-responsibility and to

avoid the search of power of a category over the other. M. Martelli

Transfer of needs in C.S. to high-tech companies. M. Matteini

Role of science/scientists in decision-making: should science/scientists be strictly impartial and

factual, only providing credible evidence to inform decisions without driving them, or should

they provide value judgments, share preferences and engage in advocacy? J.L. Pedersoli

Current trends: ‘under-researched’ versus over-rese arched’ areas

Excerpts of participants’ contributions prior to the brainstorm For Auguste Comte, by becoming "positive", the spirit renounces the question of "why? ", that is

to look for the causes of things. This is exactly what we observe and regret today in the

conservation field, where indeed, the question of “how” often evades that of “why”, leading to

regrettable conservation strategies. B. Lavédrine

16

Insufficient identification or recognition of actual (conservation) research needs due to the lack of, or poor communication between science and conservation professionals (and other stakeholders), as well as to insufficient or inadequate criteria and approaches to assess

research needs (often top-down and scientist-driven; little evidence-based and end-user integration). Fragmentary nature of (conservation) research and significant (risk of) duplication due to the lack of, or poor coordination and exchange of information within the conservation science community. Deliberate choice to carry out research into subjects most likely to receive funding and/or to

yield high-profile academic output (high “impact factor”), which are often not widely nor

readily applicable to conservation practice (“prestige-oriented instead of needs-oriented

research”). J.L. Pedersoli

‘Archaeometry’ or ‘technical studies’: generally this is without reference to conservation issues

or implications. Substantial resources are allocated in both museums and universities. It is an

alluring approach, partly because it is harmless, partly because it tends to produce firm results.

Instrument-led research: that is starting with the technique [instrument] and searching

for/exploring potential application in cultural heritage. As we all know, this is hugely on the

increase, presumably partly for reasons of supporting commercial technological development

[eg EU].

Problem-led research: starting with the problem. This attracts less and less funding. It may be

because it is the hardest, even though those of us who still have huge problems to solve

consider it the most important. S. Cather Most heritage science research is applied (near market) research. But some well-funded

heritage science research is pure (basic or fundamental) research where potential spin-off

findings may have wider benefits (e.g., study of bio-forms on cave petroglyphs indirectly

feeding bio-medical interests. J. Fidler Traditionally, three broad fields are considered for SRC: 1- characterisation of the object; 2-

factors and mechanisms of decay; 3- Products, tools and methods for conservation

treatments. It would be important to understand the reasons why Field N.3 is the less studied

by Conservation Scientists. M. Tabasso

Internationalisation

Excerpts of participants’ contributions prior to the brainstorm Coordination and collaboration on heritage research are now vital in a shrinking world. Too

much of the limited resource spent on heritage science is poorly duplicated to no advantage;

insufficient science is effectively peer reviewed; poor science is still widely published.

Research networks and focus groups are vital (e.g., SWAPNET), as are exchanges of

researchers(e.g., EC’s Marie Curie Awards). An international research agenda for heritage

science (and all heritage research) would help prioritize research funding, foster research

collaboration and limit risks of waste. J. Fidler The internationalisation of conservation science. Conservation science began in Europe. Does

the subject remain too embedded in that tradition? N. Tennent Coordination between csr in the East and West. Coordination is part of effectiveness on a

global scale. China and India are becoming major economic and green research powers.

CSR in China appears set to grow dramatically. How to coordinate? S. Michalski

17

Education & training, for scientists and for non-sc ientists

Excerpts of participants’ contributions prior to the brainstorm

Develop a practice oriented, integrated and useful science curriculum to serve the

conservation training programs. A. de Tagle

What do we mean when we say “Conservation Scientist”?

In 1998-1999, ICCROM undertook a further survey (supported by the EC) on how best to

prepare conservation scientists, in European countries and to evaluate the feasibility of a

training curriculum for conservation scientists. These issues were the subject of an international

meeting, organised in Bologna in November 1999. The conclusions of the meeting resulted in

the preparation and approval of the ‘Bologna Document’, which defined the role and

professional profile requirements of conservation scientists.

“A Conservation Scientist (CS) today can be defined as a scientist with a degree in one of the

natural, physical and/or applied scientific disciplines and with further knowledge in

conservation (ethics, history, cultural values, historical technologies, past and present

conservation technologies and practice, specific scientific aspects, etc.) which enables

him/her to contribute to the study and conservation of Cultural Heritage within an

interdisciplinary team”.

Considering that many different training initiatives where taken in the past decade by several scientific university departments (at least in Europe), is this definition still valid and can it be

adopted for the next Forum on Conservation Science? The experience of the European PhD in Conservation Science, held by the Bologna University in collaboration with eight other European Universities (2006-2009) can give us useful indication on how better train Conservation Scientists? M. Tabasso

The role of science in conservation education. There is a small sub-set of conservation

scientists who teach science in conservation degree programmes. There are few textbooks and much duplication of effort. How can this be improved? N. Tennent How do we educate conservation scientists? If this involves a combination of providing an

introduction to heritage science issues at the university level with post-doctoral opportunities

to gain needed experience after achieving a degree, how do we ensure that such

opportunities are available and attractive to young scientists? J.M. Teutonico

Transfer of technological knowledge implemented in fields other than the C.S to C.S. M.Matteini

Relevance of conservation science to wider societal priorities

Excerpts of participants’ contributions prior to the brainstorm I think the big issues for conservation science research remain the same as they have always

been for all applied sciences: relevance, effectiveness, and coordination. I think these issues

never get "solved" even though they are well known because of two realities: 1. The questions

society wants answered by applied research change, sometimes radically. 2. The research

direction and capacity of applied scientists and their institutions are very difficult to change.

[…]

Relevance of conservation science research to any new political or social priorities: Does it

demonstrate strong relevance to at least one new priority, such as sustainability, e.g. carbon

footprint reduction? Can we do more?

18

Relevance of conservation science research to any traditional political or social priorities. Is it

relevant to current heritage issues as understood by government? S. Michalski

The perspective of society on its cultural heritage is changing and this influences the questions

addressed to the conservation and conservation science fields: research priorities in the past

might not be priorities today. It seems that the active conservation treatments are no longer a

priority in term of scientific research, is it because people are afraid about consequences or

responsibilities or is it because or society is facing new challenges? Is there any share priorities

for the next 20 years in the western countries?

The implementation of a sustainable conservation policy takes into account the social and

economic issues to benefit all, so any conservation action should integrate wider objective in

order to promote sustainable development. For that purpose, they reconcile the protection

and development of the natural environment, economic development, and social progress.

This might lead to very different conservation strategy from one place to another and also

very different results in term of preservation of the artefact. In consequence is it possible to

establish international standards for conservation? Should we always consider any

conservation treatment or strategy on efficiency of the results on the cultural heritage itself or

should we always balance that with the impact on the community, its economy and

development? If yes, what could be the indicators, and what role could play conservation

science in that field. B. Lavédrine

The imperative to manage, protect and research this often finite resource, speaks to social

and economic values that make Europe what it is and contributes to its unique identity.

This imperative needs to be supported with clear policies at European level, up to date

technologies and dedicated research, which can only be done successfully if cultural

heritage is clearly prioritised in the allocation of funds.

The field of cultural heritage has to be recognized as a requisite of sustainable economic

growth and development in Europe through funding mechanisms clearly stipulated. M. Martelli Castaldi

Is conservation science responding to change?

Excerpts of participants’ contributions prior to the brainstorm Only past success in responding to change is plausible as a predictor of future success. I don't

think conservation science has demonstrated much of this kind of responsiveness partly

because we weren't asked to change much before. Of course, we routinely answer new

micro-questions within established areas, but we don’t face big new questions very well.

To respond to change, an applied science must a) identify the current questions and b)

answer them (and retool where necessary). Current questions will be a mix of some old but still

useful questions, plus the new questions. S. Michalski Despite the fact that many people are still praising the benefit for the preservation of natural

science, it would be really interested nowadays to evaluate what are the outstanding

contributions coming either from the human and social science as well as the natural science

side that made a real “positive” evolution/change in the conservation practice and improved

conservation for the last 20 years? B. Lavédrine

Funding and Resources

Excerpts of participants’ contributions prior to the brainstorm

19

‘Archaeometry’ or ‘technical studies’[…]. Substantial resources are allocated in both

museums and universities. It is an alluring approach, partly because it is harmless, partly

because it tends to produce firm results.

Instrument-led research […] As we all know, this is hugely on the increase, presumably partly

for reasons of supporting commercial technological development [eg EU].

Problem-led research[…]attracts less and less funding. It may be because it is the hardest,

even though those of us who still have huge problems to solve consider it the most important.

[…]although the vast majority of the world’s cultural heritage is – fortunately - still in situ,

conservation science for in-situ problems suffers from poor administrative infrastructure, lack of

resources(human and financial), and advocacy. S. Cather All SETI-based research areas are vital to support heritage interests. They include science

(physics, chemistry, biology, earth and environmental sciences, and mathematics and

computer science); engineering and technology (architecture, engineering, building science,

conservation, information science); and innovation. But complementary and cross-cutting

research is also necessary in the arts and humanities (social and political history, architectural

history and archaeology) and social sciences (physical geography, town planning, law,

economics and social studies) – based on the OECD’s Frascati Definitions, 1994. Many of

these fields are comparatively under-resourced at national, regional and international levels.

[…] Too much of the limited resource spent on heritage science is poorly duplicated to no

advantage. J. Fidler

Balance of attention and resources given from C.S. to objects exposed to outside compared

with objects in museums. M. Matteini

Deliberate choice to carry out research into subjects most likely to receive funding and/or to

yield high-profile academic output (high “impact factor”), which are often not widely nor

readily applicable to conservation practice (“prestige-oriented instead of needs-oriented

research”). J.L. Pedersoli Reference to the online petition, initiated by E.C.C.O. (27 January 2012)

The petition, to be signed by scientists and professionals, institutions and stakeholders acting in

the field of cultural heritage, demands to the European Council and the European Parliament

to reconsider the terms of reference in HORIZON 2020 (the), where there is no specific research

programme connected to the field of cultural heritage.

This is not only detrimental to the work done in the past 26 years of EU funded research in this

sector, but undermines the major role cultural heritage plays in the overall economy of the

EU. M. Martelli Castaldi

Lack of funds to support scientific research, at least in some countries. The fact that Cultural

Heritage research was not included in the 8th EU Framework Programme for Research and

Innovation (HORIZON 2020) is a very bad indicator of the present crisis situation. M. Tabasso

The amount of funding for conservation science has never been quantified. Should an

attempt be made to do this in order to demonstrate the relatively small amount of

international resources for this branch of science? Do we get value for money from EC and

national research council funding in the form of conservation research grants? N. Tennent In order to advance the field and also to ensure that talented researchers will take up the

challenges of heritage science, it is critical to ensure a secure funding base for conservation

research. The situation is perhaps better in Europe than in many other places but the resources

available to conservation science are still woefully inadequate. Better information about

existing national and international funding sources in the field as well as more rigorous

evaluation of the outcomes of conservation research would be extremely helpful in making

the case for improved funding levels. J. M. Teutonico

20

Coordination

Excerpts of participants’ contributions prior to the brainstorm Define and establish a venue for conservation science, such as a regular conference or space

in an existing one, publication/dissemination strategy, Forum, etc. specifically dedicated to

professional exchanges between practicing conservators (in private practice as well as

working in institutions) and conservation scientists.

Establishment of systematic networks of researchers and conservators, developing inter-

disciplinary projects, exchanging needs, issues, expertise and applicable results. A. de Tagle

Coordination and collaboration on heritage research are now vital in a shrinking world. Too

much of the limited resource spent on heritage science is poorly duplicated to no advantage;

insufficient science is effectively peer reviewed; poor science is still widely published.

Research networks and focus groups are vital (e.g., SWAPNET), as are exchanges of

researchers(e.g., EC’s Marie Curie Awards). An international research agenda for heritage

science (and all heritage research) would help prioritize research funding, foster research

collaboration and limit risks of waste. J. Fidler

Better collaboration between Conservation Scientists and Conservator-Restorers. There is a

strong need of better coordination in the actions of both professions, to strengthen common

activities for cultural heritage, to introduce the concept of co-responsibility and to avoid the

search of power of a category over the other. M. Martelli Castaldi

I think the big issues for cs research remain the same as they have always been for all applied sciences: relevance, effectiveness, and coordination. […] Coordination between csr in the East and West. Coordination is part of effectiveness on a

global scale. China and India are becoming major economic and green research powers. Csr

in China appears set to grow dramatically. How to coordinate? S. Michalski

Insufficient identification or recognition of actual (conservation) research needs due to the

lack of, or poor communication between science and conservation professionals (and other

stakeholders), as well as to insufficient or inadequate criteria and approaches to assess

research needs (often top-down and scientist-driven; little evidence-based and end-user

integration).

Fragmentary nature of (conservation) research and significant (risk of) duplication due to the

lack of, or poor coordination and exchange of information within the conservation science

community. J.L. Pedersoli

21

IV. CLOSING REMARKS BY PARTICIPANTS

Marie Lavandier: I wish to highlight three important misunderstandings:

1. Conservators need rapid answers to problems, while scientists work slowly (research takes

sometimes up to 10-20 years!). Consequently, the conservators feel abandoned by science.

Therefore conservation science must be responsive to both situations to deal with issues and

provide answers in the short term as well as long term research programmes

2. Traditional methods (local and homemade) of conservation-restoration have gone largely

un-researched but have had in the past good results, whereas innovative ones have failed.

3. Technology has outstripped our capacity to use and interpret results. Within conservation

science our capacity lies in the development of interpretations rather than in the

development of technology.

Sharon Cather: There is an immense discrepancy between the provision of science for

museums and the built heritage. A major issue is the limited availability of conservation

science both in terms of services and research for immovable heritage. The problems lie in the

scale of these objects, their number and their ownership – many of the owners are unaware of

conservation. The provision of conservation science support for immovable heritage is

negligible globally – it is a situation of “pay or beg”. In situ conservation science is an area

that is dramatically overlooked.

Norman Tennent: Science education for non-scientists (i.e. conservators) is an area that has

been lacking concerted international attention, despite the fact that it forms a component of

virtually all education programmes. There is a lack of specifically developed didactic

materials, and without sharing of information there must be a lot of re-inventing the wheel.

Stefan Michalski: Comparative risk analysis provides a quantitative approach to identify big

risks. In future as we complete more work in this area, the gaps in the data will become clearer.

Identifying the areas where the greatest uncertainties lie could be a tool to indicate areas for

research focus that would be most effective for preservation. This would also be a means for

evaluating impact. The Forum should consider tools for the future (e.g. for ‘Forum 2’ in 10 years

time), and therefore we should be planning to make the next cycle of this exercise more

efficient, rather than see it as a one off event. Therefore to sum up: Can we use risk tools (such

as comparative risk assessment) to facilitate decision making regarding research? Should we

be thinking about Conservation Science Forum 2 now, so that we can share in a quantified

process?

John Fidler: One fear is end up with a shopping list of research issues, but no strategy.

Therefore it could be helpful to use other examples where effective strategies have been

achieved as a model, e.g. Government departments for knowledge transfer, and use the

strategies available to make the task less daunting. Strategies must move with the times, and

so mechanisms are needed to make future analysis easier.

J. Luis Pedersoli: It is important that issues under consideration are representative of those of

the member states (rather than just gathering data for the rich and powerful). There is a

limited use of conservation science outputs in developing countries, partly due to access, and

partly also due to relevance. Consequently there are huge differences within the community

of users of conservation science.

Jeanne Marie Teutonico: The Forum needs to be representative, both geographically and

professionally. In addition to conservation scientists and practitioners, the Forum should

include decision-makers and funders of conservation science.

Rosalia Varoli Piazza: The less rich countries should not abandon traditional knowledge, and

hence it is important to avoid inappropriate use of innovative methods.

22

APPENDICES

A. Short bios of participants

B. Full texts of the contributions of the participa nts prior to the meeting

C. Statement of expenses