UK government scientists must be free to talk to media
14:00 03 April 2015 by
Jodie Ginsberg
For similar stories, visit the
Comment and Analysis
Topic Guide
the access government researchers have to the media will harm public
trust, says a freedom of speech campaigner
In a speech
on science and trust last year, Paul Nurse, the president of the Royal
Society in London, observed: "Science… can improve our health and
quality of life, help solve the world's problems of food security and
energy, support sustainability, and drive economic growth. But to
achieve this there needs to be a good relationship between science and
society, based on trust in science and of scientists… Good science
requires honesty and openness."
on science and trust last year, Paul Nurse, the president of the Royal
Society in London, observed: "Science… can improve our health and
quality of life, help solve the world's problems of food security and
energy, support sustainability, and drive economic growth. But to
achieve this there needs to be a good relationship between science and
society, based on trust in science and of scientists… Good science
requires honesty and openness."
Achieving that just got a whole lot harder
after UK government minister Francis Maude changed the civil service
code, making it tougher for government scientists to talk to the media.
Now they must get authorisation from their minister before having any
contact with journalists.
after UK government minister Francis Maude changed the civil service
code, making it tougher for government scientists to talk to the media.
Now they must get authorisation from their minister before having any
contact with journalists.
This will affect thousands working on
vital issues such as climate change and energy in government-funded
institutes and departments. As is so often the case with changes that
appear to be minor – a single sentence here, a paragraph there – the
government argues
that this update to the code is not new, but merely clarifies existing
rules. In practice, though, the changes harden up existing practice in a
way that is likely to encourage more press office spin and discourage
open communication.
vital issues such as climate change and energy in government-funded
institutes and departments. As is so often the case with changes that
appear to be minor – a single sentence here, a paragraph there – the
government argues
that this update to the code is not new, but merely clarifies existing
rules. In practice, though, the changes harden up existing practice in a
way that is likely to encourage more press office spin and discourage
open communication.
We know this from the experience
elsewhere. Similar rules introduced in 2008 in Canada have had a hugely
damaging impact on exchanges between government scientists and the
public. In a 2013 survey
of more than 4000 federal scientists, 48 per cent said they were aware
of cases where their department or agency "had suppressed or declined to
release information, and where this led to incomplete, inaccurate or
misleading impressions". Three-quarters said they thought the sharing of
government science findings with the Canadian public had become too
restricted.
elsewhere. Similar rules introduced in 2008 in Canada have had a hugely
damaging impact on exchanges between government scientists and the
public. In a 2013 survey
of more than 4000 federal scientists, 48 per cent said they were aware
of cases where their department or agency "had suppressed or declined to
release information, and where this led to incomplete, inaccurate or
misleading impressions". Three-quarters said they thought the sharing of
government science findings with the Canadian public had become too
restricted.
The impact is clearest on the question of climate change. In 2010, a leaked internal analysis from Environment Canada
– the government department responsible for coordinating environmental
policies and programmes – found that media coverage and information
requests on climate change (its most high-profile issue) had fallen by
over 80 per cent. Imagine that being repeated with other issues of vital
public interest, such as genetics, reproductive technologies or energy
policy.
– the government department responsible for coordinating environmental
policies and programmes – found that media coverage and information
requests on climate change (its most high-profile issue) had fallen by
over 80 per cent. Imagine that being repeated with other issues of vital
public interest, such as genetics, reproductive technologies or energy
policy.
Like good science, good government
requires honesty and openness. The role that freedom of information
legislation and practice has played in introducing much-needed sunlight
into the dusty corridors of power demonstrates how highly such openness
is prized.
requires honesty and openness. The role that freedom of information
legislation and practice has played in introducing much-needed sunlight
into the dusty corridors of power demonstrates how highly such openness
is prized.
We must not undo that good work by making
it harder for civil servants to speak out – to do so would be to
undermine further the already shaky trust in public institutions, to
drive public science back to the realm of hearsay and heresy, and to
damage democracy.
it harder for civil servants to speak out – to do so would be to
undermine further the already shaky trust in public institutions, to
drive public science back to the realm of hearsay and heresy, and to
damage democracy.
The UK's "clarification" of the rules for
civil servants is unnecessary tinkering that presents serious risks. It
should be reversed.
Jodie Ginsberg is chief executive of the Index on Censorship, an international group defending the right to freedom of expression
civil servants is unnecessary tinkering that presents serious risks. It
should be reversed.
