This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/14/government-lobbying-ban-scientists-regulations
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| The government’s lobbying ban will have a chilling impact on scientists | The government’s lobbying ban will have a chilling impact on scientists |
| (6 months later) | |
| One of the many frightening aspects of life under Joseph Stalin was the central direction of science by the Communist party. This led to egregious scientific data, disregarded in the west, but celebrated in the Soviet Union. One of the best examples was the nonsensical doctrine known as Lysenkoism, which rejected concepts such as genes and natural selection in favour of “natural cooperation” and the belief that physical changes imposed on one generation of organisms would pass down to the next – for example that plucking the leaves from a plant would encourage leaflessness in its descendants. Scientists who questioned the official view, such the geneticist Nikolai Vavilov, were denounced, exiled and in many cases sentenced to death. | One of the many frightening aspects of life under Joseph Stalin was the central direction of science by the Communist party. This led to egregious scientific data, disregarded in the west, but celebrated in the Soviet Union. One of the best examples was the nonsensical doctrine known as Lysenkoism, which rejected concepts such as genes and natural selection in favour of “natural cooperation” and the belief that physical changes imposed on one generation of organisms would pass down to the next – for example that plucking the leaves from a plant would encourage leaflessness in its descendants. Scientists who questioned the official view, such the geneticist Nikolai Vavilov, were denounced, exiled and in many cases sentenced to death. |
| The British government now seems to be moving in the same direction, trying to limit scientific outputs to those that support its policies. Hard to believe? That’s the effect of a recent, largely misunderstood move by the Cabinet Office. When it announced plans to prevent any person or institution in receipt of government money from using those funds to argue (“lobby”, if you prefer) against official policy, this was widely interpreted as an attempt to silence unruly charities. As the minister Matthew Hancock put it, a clause to be inserted in new and renewed grant agreements would mean that “taxpayers won’t be made to foot the bill for political campaigning and political lobbying”. | The British government now seems to be moving in the same direction, trying to limit scientific outputs to those that support its policies. Hard to believe? That’s the effect of a recent, largely misunderstood move by the Cabinet Office. When it announced plans to prevent any person or institution in receipt of government money from using those funds to argue (“lobby”, if you prefer) against official policy, this was widely interpreted as an attempt to silence unruly charities. As the minister Matthew Hancock put it, a clause to be inserted in new and renewed grant agreements would mean that “taxpayers won’t be made to foot the bill for political campaigning and political lobbying”. |
| But the move has wider and even more worrying ramifications – it could significantly censor scientific debate. Almost all scientists in the UK get some form of funding from the government, which is most commonly in terms of salary from universities or the NHS, but can also be specific grant funding from government research charities such as the Medical Research Council or the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. | But the move has wider and even more worrying ramifications – it could significantly censor scientific debate. Almost all scientists in the UK get some form of funding from the government, which is most commonly in terms of salary from universities or the NHS, but can also be specific grant funding from government research charities such as the Medical Research Council or the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. |
| Even more chilling is the potential impact on our leading scientific institutions, the Royal Society and the Academy of Medical Sciences, both of which receive very significant amount of their funding from government. Will they no longer be able to review health and science policy if their findings might challenge government policy? | Even more chilling is the potential impact on our leading scientific institutions, the Royal Society and the Academy of Medical Sciences, both of which receive very significant amount of their funding from government. Will they no longer be able to review health and science policy if their findings might challenge government policy? |
| And who will decide what constitutes “lobbying” and is therefore banned and what is simply scientists talking about the implications of their research findings? Censorship would irreparably damage scientific enquiry and debate in the UK and make the country a much less desirable destination for scientists and scientific investment. It would also lead to the growth of US-style anti-science “thinktanks”, as described in Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s recent book Merchants of Doubt. | And who will decide what constitutes “lobbying” and is therefore banned and what is simply scientists talking about the implications of their research findings? Censorship would irreparably damage scientific enquiry and debate in the UK and make the country a much less desirable destination for scientists and scientific investment. It would also lead to the growth of US-style anti-science “thinktanks”, as described in Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s recent book Merchants of Doubt. |
| If the new directive has the effect of sending scientists back into their labs, then taxpayers will be the big losers | If the new directive has the effect of sending scientists back into their labs, then taxpayers will be the big losers |
| It is not clear what sanctions could be applied to anyone who ignores the anti-lobbying “directive”. They couldn’t be prosecuted, but it has been rumoured that researchers found culpable of lobbying would be made to pay the money back. Of course, this would be impossible as the grant money would have been spent. In reality this directive appears to have been designed to scare researchers away from issues the government doesn’t want explored. It will have a chilling effect on researchers, especially those already reluctant to speak out because their findings are contentious and inconvenient for ministers, whether they concern alcohol pricing, climate change or psychoactive substances. | It is not clear what sanctions could be applied to anyone who ignores the anti-lobbying “directive”. They couldn’t be prosecuted, but it has been rumoured that researchers found culpable of lobbying would be made to pay the money back. Of course, this would be impossible as the grant money would have been spent. In reality this directive appears to have been designed to scare researchers away from issues the government doesn’t want explored. It will have a chilling effect on researchers, especially those already reluctant to speak out because their findings are contentious and inconvenient for ministers, whether they concern alcohol pricing, climate change or psychoactive substances. |
| I have direct experience of how ministers dislike having to deal with scientific evidence that contradicts their policy. I was threatened with dismissal by two Home Office ministers and then sacked after publicising the findings of my peer-reviewed research into the relative harms of drugs in 2009. Rather than hearing that evidence, assessing it and honestly rejecting it on the grounds that it clashed with party policy, ministers instead sacked me from my role as independent adviser on drugs. | I have direct experience of how ministers dislike having to deal with scientific evidence that contradicts their policy. I was threatened with dismissal by two Home Office ministers and then sacked after publicising the findings of my peer-reviewed research into the relative harms of drugs in 2009. Rather than hearing that evidence, assessing it and honestly rejecting it on the grounds that it clashed with party policy, ministers instead sacked me from my role as independent adviser on drugs. |
| The message to other scientists with inconvenient evidence was clear, and it saddens me greatly that this is the same message being sent by this new missive: the awkward squad should stay out of the debate. It’s likely that a secret blacklist of “dissident” scientists will be kept. | The message to other scientists with inconvenient evidence was clear, and it saddens me greatly that this is the same message being sent by this new missive: the awkward squad should stay out of the debate. It’s likely that a secret blacklist of “dissident” scientists will be kept. |
| Why has this directive been developed? The argument goes that it is wrong to use taxpayers’ money to lobby against the elected government. But it’s only by examining all the evidence – which could be for as well as against – that we can be certain that current policies are the best they can be. | Why has this directive been developed? The argument goes that it is wrong to use taxpayers’ money to lobby against the elected government. But it’s only by examining all the evidence – which could be for as well as against – that we can be certain that current policies are the best they can be. |
| If the new directive has the effect of sending scientists back into their labs and preventing them from talking publicly about their research, then taxpayers will be the big losers. They will have less access to fully independent research on key issues of health and welfare and environmental change, making it easier for them to be hoodwinked by political and commercial interests. | If the new directive has the effect of sending scientists back into their labs and preventing them from talking publicly about their research, then taxpayers will be the big losers. They will have less access to fully independent research on key issues of health and welfare and environmental change, making it easier for them to be hoodwinked by political and commercial interests. |
| All scientists should support their parent institutions and professional colleges in lobbying to oppose this appalling insult to freedom of thought and research. They can start by signing Bob Ward’s online petition to “exempt grants for academic research from new ‘anti-lobbying’ regulation”. And if you’re not a scientist but care about research being censored, you should sign it too. | All scientists should support their parent institutions and professional colleges in lobbying to oppose this appalling insult to freedom of thought and research. They can start by signing Bob Ward’s online petition to “exempt grants for academic research from new ‘anti-lobbying’ regulation”. And if you’re not a scientist but care about research being censored, you should sign it too. |
Previous version
1
Next version