IMAGINE you are a scientist researching a question with implications for public policy: pollution, say, or drug addiction, or vaccines, or fracking, or the rehabilitation of offenders. Should you be allowed to speak out about what your discoveries mean for wider society?
In an open and enlightened society, this should not even be a question. But in the UK, the answer almost became no, until a skin-of-the-teeth U-turn from the government.
As of next month, a new will prevent anyone who receives UK government funding from using that money to 鈥渟upport activity intended to influence or attempt to influence Parliament, Government or political parties鈥� or attempting to influence legislative or regulatory action鈥�.
Advertisement
The anti-lobbying clause, as it is known, is mainly intended to stop pressure groups from using taxpayers鈥� money for lobbying. But one of its consequences would have been to gag scientists who receive public money, effectively excluding them from the policymaking process.
Earlier this week, with just a few days to go before it became law, the government bowed to pressure and granted scientists an exemption. But the fact that it took so long and went so close to the wire was not an edifying spectacle. Nor did it do much to dispel the idea that this government is not interested in evidence-based policymaking, as suggested by the Psychoactive Substances Act and the snooper鈥檚 charter.
For now we can give credit where it is due, and breathe a sigh of relief. But the episode has unnecessarily worsened already strained relationships.
The fear remains that the UK is going down the same road as Canada, which a few years ago cut science to the bone and muzzled federally funded scientists. That assault on free speech was later reversed, but it did enormous damage to Canada鈥檚 reputation as a progressive, pro-science country. The UK must not make the same mistake.
This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淭oo close to the bone鈥�