4 ms·

Confusion reigns as UK scientists face government 'gagging' clause

50 points by Amorymeltzer 11y ago

x5n1 11y ago
Great law should have exemption for certain things.
- vkou 11y ago
  Yet, oddly enough, it does not prohibit government contractors, or recipients of tax breaks/subsidies from lobbying...
nonbel 11y ago
>"But unless an exception is given to researchers, Ward adds, they will face having to use their own funds to do anything that could be considered lobbying or influencing policy." What is the problem? It makes no sense for the government to give money to someone who uses it to lobby the government. It doesn't make sense if a charity does it, a church does it, or a researcher does it. What am I missing? Grant money should be spent on research, not lobbying...
- weavejester 11y ago
  I guess it depends on what "influencing policy" means. Say a scientist using public funds happens to find results that contradict current government policy. Publishing the results could be considered as influencing policy, particularly if the opposition party picks it up and runs with it.
  - nonbel 11y ago
    I think we need to know what doesn't count as influencing policy, since it seems like that could cover just about everything.
    - dsp1234 11y ago
      Isn't that what the 'Confusion reigns' in the title referring to? FTA: "On 6 February, the government announced that any groups in receipt of public money will be banned from using those funds to attempt to influence either the government or Parliament." "In theory, this could mean that scientists at UK universities are not allowed to tell ministers what the policy implications of their work are, or respond to consultations that touch on their area of interest — potentially removing their ability to comment on everything from climate change to medical regulation." I'm not 100% sure on how the UK works, but in the US, if there is some new research that is done, and I'm invited to White House (or even to meet with a local senator, or give a talk as a conference with government personnel present), it's likely that the money to travel, speaker fees, etc are paid with grant money. This is generally 'normal'. What's the point of doing any research when I can't actually talk about the results with the people who are most likely going to be able to use it (since they paid for it)
      - nonbel 11y ago
        Not that I know anything specific about this law, but I don't believe this would cover discussing your work in the presence of government personnel. The same would have to apply to any charity that happened to discuss it's success or needs. What if they use the money to put up a webpage and government personnel happen to click on it? It sounds like a very poorly written law in general if that is the case.
        dsp1234 11y ago
        I was specifically envisioning something like a government sponsored, or affiliated conference like speaking at an NOAA, DOD, etc workshop (which could fall under "attempt to influence ... government... parties"), which again is where the confusion comes from, and why the associated organizations are trying to bring clarity. And for clarity, it's not a law, but new wording being put into all grant contracts. In it's entirety reads: "The following costs are not Eligible Expenditure: Payments that support activity intended to influence or attempt to influence Parliament, government or political parties, or attempting to influence the awarding or renewal of contracts and grants, or attempting to influence legislative or regulatory action."[0] [0] - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-new-clause-to-be-inserted-into-grant-agreements https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-new-...
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  A lot of current politicians would class any paper about climate change, or the dangers of fracking, as "lobbying or influencing policy."
- vkou 11y ago
  Because this only muzzles public, or semi-public institutions. Private, for-profit institutions receiving government funding and subsidies are not affected.
- ACow_Adonis 11y ago
  The problem is that this is just a giant amorphous grey area. We faced it all the time back when I worked for the Bureau of Stats (Aus, not UK, but the systems are related). In fact, i'll give you one of my old work place dilemmas. The government notionally paid us money to produce indicators of housing affordability across time. At first I thought this would be kind of cool to work on. As both a technical specialist and someone with experience working with both income and housing data, I remember being young, naive, and thinking "Well its about time!". What I didn't realise was that when they said "work on this", what they really meant was that some nut, somewhere, no doubt a useless executive or someone with government/political connections (it was never entirely clear or transparent to me how this thing I was supposed to be calculating had come about) had already chosen the metric and the methodology. I was no longer an expert, I was a political cog. Although we were the specialists and the technical experts, and were notionally employed by the government to provide good, suitable, and accurate information so that policy could be influenced with good and appropriate data, my job was now to go in and produce shit. Now, should I be saying something or doing something about this? And before you think this is a one off, we got it all the time: Labor force stats, incomes, house prices, gdp, pollution, production figures, etc, etc, etc. Its a professional hazard. We faced dilemmas both on what we measure, how we measure, what is collected and what is not, and how it is interpreted. Contrary to what people think, numbers aren't just numbers. As both the experts and the people at the coal-face, we're almost always among the best qualified people to comment on the production and interpretation of our numbers, and let me say that the abuse of our numbers and that information is rife. The safest career and life move, I would observe, is just self censorship. Sit down. Shut up. Produce what we tell you. Don't rock the boat. Don't comment on anything political. And since there's no definition of what's "political", the safest response is to just not comment on anything. Do what the hierarchy says and follow orders. It is not historically inaccurate to say that working on that project led me to try to transfer out of that section/project, and I did, despite the quality of my colleagues. And it is not inaccurate to say that such had a part to play in me leaving the org, not the biggest part, but it was an issue. To me, being professionally a-political is not abandoning the ability to influence or comment on policy, but the ability to make policy conform to truth and our best attempts at validity and objectivity, or at the very least to be able to make the people making such decisions knowledgeable that what they're doing is going against your advice and best evidence. But such conflicts with plausible deniability, political blame games, and often risks exposing some of the very explicit political connections and corruption that determines how policy is actually made. For a variety of reasons, I feel that objective and apolitical culture has been lost in public service here in general, science or otherwise. Its a different country, but if you've had experience in these things, you'll know that the culture/topics/fads/zeitgeists of the UK/Canada/US and Aus are all closely interconnected.
afreak 11y ago
Conservatives in the UK are not alone; they're taking a page from the Tories in Canada where Harper did the same thing. http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/faq-the-issues-around-muzzling-government-scientists-1.3079537 http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/faq-the-issues-around-muzz...
- rwmj 11y ago
  We can only hope there is a backlash resulting in the election of a liberal party after this one.
rwmj 11y ago
It's amusing that UK political parties are also "groups in receipt of public money".

50 points by Amorymeltzer 11y ago

x5n1 11y ago

Great law should have exemption for certain things.

vkou 11y ago
Yet, oddly enough, it does not prohibit government contractors, or recipients of tax breaks/subsidies from lobbying...

nonbel 11y ago

>"But unless an exception is given to researchers, Ward adds, they will face having to use their own funds to do anything that could be considered lobbying or influencing policy." What is the problem? It makes no sense for the government to give money to someone who uses it to lobby the government. It doesn't make sense if a charity does it, a church does it, or a researcher does it. What am I missing? Grant money should be spent on research, not lobbying...

weavejester 11y ago
I guess it depends on what "influencing policy" means. Say a scientist using public funds happens to find results that contradict current government policy. Publishing the results could be considered as influencing policy, particularly if the opposition party picks it up and runs with it.
- nonbel 11y ago
  I think we need to know what doesn't count as influencing policy, since it seems like that could cover just about everything.
  - dsp1234 11y ago
    Isn't that what the 'Confusion reigns' in the title referring to? FTA: "On 6 February, the government announced that any groups in receipt of public money will be banned from using those funds to attempt to influence either the government or Parliament." "In theory, this could mean that scientists at UK universities are not allowed to tell ministers what the policy implications of their work are, or respond to consultations that touch on their area of interest — potentially removing their ability to comment on everything from climate change to medical regulation." I'm not 100% sure on how the UK works, but in the US, if there is some new research that is done, and I'm invited to White House (or even to meet with a local senator, or give a talk as a conference with government personnel present), it's likely that the money to travel, speaker fees, etc are paid with grant money. This is generally 'normal'. What's the point of doing any research when I can't actually talk about the results with the people who are most likely going to be able to use it (since they paid for it)
    - nonbel 11y ago
      Not that I know anything specific about this law, but I don't believe this would cover discussing your work in the presence of government personnel. The same would have to apply to any charity that happened to discuss it's success or needs. What if they use the money to put up a webpage and government personnel happen to click on it? It sounds like a very poorly written law in general if that is the case.
      - dsp1234 11y ago
        I was specifically envisioning something like a government sponsored, or affiliated conference like speaking at an NOAA, DOD, etc workshop (which could fall under "attempt to influence ... government... parties"), which again is where the confusion comes from, and why the associated organizations are trying to bring clarity. And for clarity, it's not a law, but new wording being put into all grant contracts. In it's entirety reads: "The following costs are not Eligible Expenditure: Payments that support activity intended to influence or attempt to influence Parliament, government or political parties, or attempting to influence the awarding or renewal of contracts and grants, or attempting to influence legislative or regulatory action."[0] [0] - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-new-clause-to-be-inserted-into-grant-agreements https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-new-...
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
A lot of current politicians would class any paper about climate change, or the dangers of fracking, as "lobbying or influencing policy."
vkou 11y ago
Because this only muzzles public, or semi-public institutions. Private, for-profit institutions receiving government funding and subsidies are not affected.
ACow_Adonis 11y ago
The problem is that this is just a giant amorphous grey area. We faced it all the time back when I worked for the Bureau of Stats (Aus, not UK, but the systems are related). In fact, i'll give you one of my old work place dilemmas. The government notionally paid us money to produce indicators of housing affordability across time. At first I thought this would be kind of cool to work on. As both a technical specialist and someone with experience working with both income and housing data, I remember being young, naive, and thinking "Well its about time!". What I didn't realise was that when they said "work on this", what they really meant was that some nut, somewhere, no doubt a useless executive or someone with government/political connections (it was never entirely clear or transparent to me how this thing I was supposed to be calculating had come about) had already chosen the metric and the methodology. I was no longer an expert, I was a political cog. Although we were the specialists and the technical experts, and were notionally employed by the government to provide good, suitable, and accurate information so that policy could be influenced with good and appropriate data, my job was now to go in and produce shit. Now, should I be saying something or doing something about this? And before you think this is a one off, we got it all the time: Labor force stats, incomes, house prices, gdp, pollution, production figures, etc, etc, etc. Its a professional hazard. We faced dilemmas both on what we measure, how we measure, what is collected and what is not, and how it is interpreted. Contrary to what people think, numbers aren't just numbers. As both the experts and the people at the coal-face, we're almost always among the best qualified people to comment on the production and interpretation of our numbers, and let me say that the abuse of our numbers and that information is rife. The safest career and life move, I would observe, is just self censorship. Sit down. Shut up. Produce what we tell you. Don't rock the boat. Don't comment on anything political. And since there's no definition of what's "political", the safest response is to just not comment on anything. Do what the hierarchy says and follow orders. It is not historically inaccurate to say that working on that project led me to try to transfer out of that section/project, and I did, despite the quality of my colleagues. And it is not inaccurate to say that such had a part to play in me leaving the org, not the biggest part, but it was an issue. To me, being professionally a-political is not abandoning the ability to influence or comment on policy, but the ability to make policy conform to truth and our best attempts at validity and objectivity, or at the very least to be able to make the people making such decisions knowledgeable that what they're doing is going against your advice and best evidence. But such conflicts with plausible deniability, political blame games, and often risks exposing some of the very explicit political connections and corruption that determines how policy is actually made. For a variety of reasons, I feel that objective and apolitical culture has been lost in public service here in general, science or otherwise. Its a different country, but if you've had experience in these things, you'll know that the culture/topics/fads/zeitgeists of the UK/Canada/US and Aus are all closely interconnected.

afreak 11y ago

Conservatives in the UK are not alone; they're taking a page from the Tories in Canada where Harper did the same thing. http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/faq-the-issues-around-muzzling-government-scientists-1.3079537 http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/faq-the-issues-around-muzz...

rwmj 11y ago
We can only hope there is a backlash resulting in the election of a liberal party after this one.

rwmj 11y ago

It's amusing that UK political parties are also "groups in receipt of public money".