select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
before the headlines
Fiona fox's blog
The government has clarified in the House of Lords that it does not intend for the proposed anti-lobbying clause to cover academic researchers funded through the Department for Business Innovation & Skills, the research councils or national academies, and will consult further and make another announcement by May 1st.
Prof. Lord Martin Rees, Fellow of Trinity College, University of Cambridge, said:
“This clarification is welcome but should have come sooner. It’s regrettable that it was preceded by months of confusion and ambiguity that generated needless anxiety, ill-feeling and time wasting.”
Lord Stern, President of the British Academy, said:
“The British Academy welcomes today’s announcement of the government’s intention that science and research bodies, including the National Academies, will not be covered by the anti-lobbying clause. This is excellent news for researchers and scholars across the humanities and social sciences who provide expert evidence and independent advice to inform policy making on issues ranging from protecting the environment to the role of faith in modern day conflicts. It is important that they remain free to choose their topics and follow where the evidence takes them, and to communicate their findings widely.”
Prof. Duncan Wingham, Deputy Chair of Research Councils UK (RCUK) and Chief Executive of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), said:
“We are pleased that ministers have clarified that the Research Councils are not covered by the new clause on government grants. For our world-class researchers to realise the full potential and impact of their work for wider society they need to be able to disseminate their findings and to discuss the implications. The Research Councils are pleased that this can continue.”
Prof. Venki Ramakrishnan, President of the Royal Society, said:
“The Royal Society very much welcomes the news that it is not the intention of the government for the Research Councils, HEFCE or the National Academies to be covered by the anti-lobbying clause. Governments need independent evidence to make good policy decisions and any barrier to our government getting that evidence would be a problem. I think everyone involved in the discussions on this matter has recognised that and we look forward to having further clarification.”
Prof. William Sutherland, Miriam Rothschild Chair in Conservation Biology at the University of Cambridge, said:
“All concerned with science and policy will welcome this long overdue reversal. Otherwise we faced the ludicrous contradiction of being evaluated by our impact yet banned from trying to achieve it.
Prof. Mark Maslin, University College London, said:
“The independence of a country’s scientific expertise is central to the freedoms demanded by a modern democracy. If government or commerce, whether inadvertent or knowingly, put people at risk then scientists must be free to sound the warning bells without the risk of censure or legal proceedings. By rights the government should be granting a full exemption to all scientists sending a clear message that scientific knowledge is above petty party politics and is there for the betterment of all citizens. What we have is a mess with an imprecise exemption which does not ensure that all scientists can criticize the government with impunity.”
Prof. Neil Gow, President of the Microbiology Society, said:
“Exempting publicly-funded scientists from the anti-lobbying clause would be a welcome step to ensure that scientific evidence and advice can continue to inform the policy-making process. Without this exemption, scientists would have effectively been unable to speak out on important issues, simply because their research is government funded.
“If the government wants to plan for, and respond effectively to, emergencies like the recent Zika or Ebola outbreaks, all relevant experts, not just those who are privately funded, should have the opportunity to have their voices heard.”
Fiona Fox, Chief Executive of the Science Media Centre, said:
“I am relieved to hear that many publicly-funded scientists will not be restricted by this ill-conceived clause. And I congratulate all those in the scientific community who protested both publicly and privately. It’s only in the last decade that scientists have really found their voice and engaged fully in the topical controversies of our time and it’s refreshing to see how passionately they have defended that voice in recent weeks.
“But this long-awaited exemption is still imprecise. Not all scientists are funded by BIS or via the HEFCE. Will those funded directly by other government departments be prohibited from lobbying by this clause?
“While this is good news, it’s depressing that we keep having to fight these battles. Even before this latest episode the SMC has been fighting against very real restrictions on government scientists which prevent the public and policymakers from getting the full benefit of their considerable expertise on matters of public interest. Those restrictions are still in place.
“I think our government should take a lead from the new government in Canada. Within hours of winning the election they issued a statement lifting all restrictions on government scientists engaging with the media and made a very public commitment to the importance of scientists speaking on matters of public interest. I would love to see our politicians demonstrate such bravery and use this opportunity to make a similarly bold and unconditional commitment to all scientists funded by the taxpayer: that we still need to hear from them, even when their research findings may be inconvenient.”
Dr Mark Downs, Chief Executive of the Royal Society of Biology, said:
“Today’s discussion in the Lords highlights the critical importance of getting this right. We welcome the fact that the Minister for Universities and Science is taking steps to ensure that research is not adversely affected in any way. The intention to exclude grants from the Research Councils, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the National Academies from this clause is welcome. But intentions must be turned into clear and unequivocal guidance. There remains a considerable portion of the research community who have not yet been mentioned, including those whose work is funded by government departments, and others, specifically to answer policy challenges. Uncertainty remains and the announcements planned by BIS for May 1st remain crucial.”
Prof. Sir Robert Lechler PMedSci, President of the Academy of Medical Sciences, said:
“I am extremely pleased that the government has confirmed that it does not intend for the National Academies to be covered by the anti-lobbying clause. As such, the Academy of Medical Sciences can continue to provide expert and independent advice to government, Parliament and other agencies, and ensure that scientific evidence underpins policy and practice.
“Publicly-funded research is vital in generating an independent evidence base for new policy. The confirmation that Research Councils and HEFCE will not be subject to this clause will ensure that research evidence can continue to impact on government policy and inform wider social debates.”
Prof. Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell, President of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, said:
“We welcome the clause not applying to expert advice coming from all branches of knowledge, and we are pleased the government recognises there is expertise outside Westminster that they need to use.”
Lord Stern, President of the British Academy, said:
“The British Academy welcomes today’s announcement of the government’s intention that science and research bodies, including the National Academies, will not be covered by the Anti-Lobbying Clause. This is excellent news for researchers and scholars across the humanities and social sciences who provide expert evidence and independent advice to inform policy making on issues ranging from protecting the environment to the role of faith in modern day conflicts. It is important that they remain free to choose their topics and follow where the evidence takes them, and to communicate their findings widely.”
Professor Steve Busby, University of Birmingham and Chair of the Executive Committee, Biochemical Society, said:
“We welcome the exemption from the lobbying clause for researchers, which will help to protect their academic freedom and encourage their continuing collaboration with Parliament. It is vital to ensure that scientists are able to use their findings to support evidence-based policy making and to enable informed discussions around key issues, especially relating to life science.”
Dr Sarah Main, Director of the Campaign for Science & Engineering, said:
“This is good news and a huge step in the right direction. Scientists felt embroiled in a debate about lobbying which did not appear to apply to them. The Science Minister, Jo Johnson, and many across government have done a huge amount to make the case that it does not. The message is loud and clear that science is a welcome and necessary part of Parliamentary debate and policy-making. We trust that all ministers will take Jo Johnson’s lead to ensure that researchers funded by any department can freely engage with Parliament.”
“We now need to get the detail right to make sure this solution works for all of government and all of science.”
Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science, said:
“I am very glad that the Government has today announced its intention to create this exemption for university researchers. I do not believe that the Government meant for the ‘anti-lobbying’ clause to apply to grants for researchers in universities and research institutes, and I am glad that the Cabinet Office has today indicated that it will do the right thing.
“I hope that the exemption will apply not just to grants from the higher education funding councils and research councils, but also to grants from Government Departments for research. Without the exemption, the clause would forbid researchers from using Government grants to attempt to influence policy-making. Such a restriction would be bad for policy-making, bad for the public interest and bad for democracy. I know that many organisations and individuals, including Jo Johnson, the Universities and Science Minister, have been making the case for an exemption, as have more than 19,000 people who have signed the official petition that I started at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/122957. I am relieved that common sense seems to be prevailing on this issue.”