A new in the UK is causing a chill in science circles. It appears to have the potential to muzzle research funded by government grants.
The clause was initially aimed at charities to stop them from using such grants to pay for lobbying activities. But its apparent wider scope could mean it will not be permissible to use hard evidence as a way to 鈥渋nfluence legislative or regulatory action鈥�. A .
If the measure was enacted, it would be a disaster. Politicians make tricky decisions. Evidence is required in every aspect of their work, and is critical for making progress on society鈥檚 biggest challenges. Charles Clarke, a聽former home secretary, has identified a : pension reform, nuclear waste, drug regulation and climate change are put in a 鈥渢oo difficult box鈥�.
Advertisement
Risky climate
With climate risks, for example, more evidence, not less, is required. Storm Desmond wreaked havoc across northern England in December. In its aftermath, the government set up a National Flood Resilience Review, calling for evidence on the adequacy of climate and river modelling, the design of critical infrastructure, and emergency forecasting and planning.
I submitted research about the burden of floods on the well-being of those affected. This stemmed from two years of work with people recovering from the 2013 floods in Somerset, as well as research on lessons from Ireland and the UK following聽devastating floods in 2009. I hope it is useful and makes a difference. It was all paid for by UK public funds.
The consultation for the review deliberately excluded opinion, anecdote, or pleading from special interest groups. If it excluded publicly funded research findings, what would be left? Perhaps nothing. Or maybe only findings based on work funded by the insurance industry or engineering companies. Either way, the important job of making the UK more resilient would be harder.
Citizens of the world
Researchers are also citizens of the world. UK science makes a massive and well-understood contribution to global efforts to assess risks and make sensible strategies on climate change. Its scientists are also highly visible in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We do not yet know if this work too would fall foul of anti-lobbying restrictions.
It is important to remember that the public pays for a lot of research and deserves for it to be used in the best possible way. The government has also made research funding in UK universities contingent on maximising the work鈥檚 impact, including through policy and regulation, encouraging us to come down from ivory towers to rain-sodden fields and detailed public inquiries. UK science is all the better for it.
The worry among scientists working in controversial areas is that the anti-lobbying clause is dangerously ambiguous. Politicians make difficult decisions, usually on the basis of imperfect information. They should not further restrict themselves or hide behind anti-lobbying regulations to avoid unwelcome truths.
