4 ms·

I guess it depends on what "influencing policy" means. Say a scientist using public funds happens to find results that contradict current government policy. Pub

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-...

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-...