David Dunlap Observatory was inaugurated in 1935 and its 1.8 meter Grupp Parsons reflector was large for its times. The observatory figured prominently in fields such as stellar radial velocities during the mid-20th century (J.B. Hearnshaw, The analysis of starlight: One hundred and fifty years of astronomical spectroscopy (Cambridge University Press, 1986, 182ff) but its telescope became increasingly seen as outdated and the location as not suitable because of light pollution.
When plans for the closure of the observatory became public, an online petition was started that eventually got 2866 signatures. Arguments and comments were that the observatory played a role for education and inspiring people in science (“Must every child be brought up to be a hockey player”); local and national heritage and cultural history; greed trumping academic values; environmental issues; research policy, in that the closure showed how little science mattered in Canada.
Now, the petition did not succeed, David Dunlap Observatory was sold, generating $70 million for the university, but such organized “resistance”, as it were, shows what can happen when a scientific installation has generated enough public interest in the surrounding community. Some sciences are more likely to generate such support than others I guess. Astronomy, zoology/natural history come to mind, but who would organize public protests against the shutdown of an outdated protein lab?
Many people dispute the light pollution issue at Dunlap Observatory. The facility was primarily used for stellar spectroscopy and was largely unaffected by light pollution. Also, the community did much more than mount an online petition. There were three protest rallies, letter writing campaigns and considerable personal petitioning of various politicians at all levels of government.
Several groups are still interested in creating a community observatory. An Ontario Conservation Review Board hearing in January 2009 will determine how much of the property should be preserved. The Richmond Hill Naturalists and others have argued for a 100% designation of the entire property and will participate in the CRB hearing.
Unlike an “outdated protein lab”, the Dunlap property is highly visible and has been an integral part of Richmond Hill for 75 years — and was a place rich in local history before then.
It’s not just about science — though that is important — it’s about place, people and community. But, even if you only consider the science, there is considerable debate within the astronomical community over the value of “small” telescopes. Have a look at the U.S. ReSTAR initiative:
http://www.noao.edu/system/restar/
That group of eminent astronomers has made detailed recommendations for the continued use of small telescopes and notes:
“The science to be done with small and mid-size telescopes remains compelling and competitive in the era of big telescopes. Small and mid-size
telescopes continue to produce innovative science in themselves, and to provide precursor and follow-up observations that enhance the scientific
productivity of larger telescopes. Small and mid-size telescopes also enable scientific investigations that are not possible on larger telescopes.”
The University of Toronto’s sale of the DDO was nothing but a quick cash grab that was aided and abetted by the Ontario government. The sale should never have been allowed to proceed without giving the public a chance to find a way to keep it running. There were many people willing to try.
Rod, many thanks for the extra information about the DDO case! It seems to be an interesting instance of strong extramural community support that goes against the disruptive process – may one perhaps even call it the creative destruction logic – one sees in some parts of modern research policy and funding.
And also thanks for pointing me to the ReSTAR initiative! Hadn’t seen that before. It kind of confirms my suspicion that there are groups within astronomy that oppose the shutdown of smaller facilities on the grounds of scientific arguments.
They are fighting against a bigger-is-better way of thinking. Bigness is a thing that attracts funding; for example, the prospect of building the biggest telescope in the world seems to have been a contributing factor when Hale raised money from Charles T. Yerkes for the 1 meter refractor (Donald Osterbrock, Pauper and prince: Ritchey, Hale, & big american telescopes (Tucson, 1993) 29f.)
Just today I was writing about the inauguration of the AlbaNova telescope, which you could say is the last part of the dismantling/moving of Stockholm Observatory from its out-of-town Saltsjöbaden site back into the city. Light pollution no longer being a problem (hence the move) and astronomers still wanting some sort of nice telescope (which can also be, in this case, used for studying city air pollution).
Robert – interesting! What has happened with the 1m Grubb Parsons reflector, the 50/60 cm double refractor, the astrograph (40 cm, was it?) (and wasn’t there a medium-sized Schmidt telescope as well?) and the buildings in Saltsjöbaden?