The news that the Science Gallery may be closing next year shocked everyone who read it – not just the fact that the future of a pioneering project which spawned likenesses all over the world was faced with closure, but the fact that the announcement came not from official channels, but through the Business Post.
No one is denying that Trinity has taken a major hit due to the pandemic, but College ought to provide staff and students – and, indeed, the general public – with greater reasoning for the possible closure than a source telling the Business Post that it couldn’t afford to keep the gallery open. As a free-entry exhibition space, the Science Gallery was never run for profit, but have its running costs increased significantly? Were attempts to find a long-term sponsor futile?
The Science Gallery represented a connection between Trinity and the public. Trinity’s critics are often quick to point out that such connections are few and far between. If Provost Linda Doyle wants College to shirk its image as closed off and secretive, the closure of the gallery would be a major step in the wrong direction.
The day after the news that the gallery would close, Doyle announced she would discuss its future with Minister for Higher Education Simon Harris, as well as relevant stakeholders – presumably to try to keep it alive. A government bailout is on the table, but the matter has yet to come to College Board, so nothing is set in stone until that happens – but Trinity has not communicated this.
Doyle promised that she would lead Trinity into a new era of transparency, but so far, her administration’s handling of the Science Gallery closure has been more consistent with the old guard. The decision to close the gallery for good is not final, but Trinity ought not to leave its own community, and the wider public, in the dark over this week’s discussions.
