select search filters
roundups & rapid reactions
before the headlines
Fiona fox's blog

letter to Sir Jeremy Heywood asking for clarification of purdah rules for scientists

Writing to the Cabinet Secretary & Head of the Civil Service today, the SMC, Association of British Science Writers (ABSW), Royal Statistical Society, Royal Institution of Great Britain, British Pharmacological Society, Campaign for Science and Engineering, British Science Association, Association of Medical Research Charities, Sense about Science, Medical Journalists’ Association, The Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and Full Fact have come together to express our joint concern about the ambiguity surrounding purdah rules for scientists.

SMC Chief Executive Fiona Fox recently authored a blog illustrating the SMC’s concerns.

Below is our letter to Sir Jeremy Heywood, and his response.



Sir Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary & Head of the Civil Service


Professor Sir Mark Walport, Government Chief Scientific Adviser

Professor Dame Sally Davies, Chief Medical Officer

Professor Chris Whitty, DH Chief Scientific Adviser

Professor Ian Boyd, DEFRA Chief Scientific Adviser

Professor John Loughhead, BEIS Chief Scientific Adviser


18 May 2017

Dear Sir Jeremy,

We the undersigned write to seek urgent clarification around the application of ‘purdah’ to scientists. We cannot remember an election where purdah extended so far into the daily work of research-active scientists and we are extremely concerned that the public are being denied access to the best experts at the time they are most needed. We have seen examples of researchers declining to provide comments on a new study on climate change, scientists from several arm’s-length agencies and research council institutes nervous about talking proactively about the drought, and university researchers feeling unable to provide comment to journalists on the government’s draft UK air quality plan because of instruction from government that their membership of an independent Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) on air pollution made them subject to purdah.

We understand the basic principles of purdah and accept the need for civil servants to keep the airwaves free for electioneering and to avoid announcing investments or new initiatives that could sway voters. We do not believe however that purdah was ever intended to stop research-active scientists from commenting on breaking news or critiquing important new studies. These activities are an important part of the scientific process, are not political, and should not be interrupted by an election without good reason. Journalists will report on issues like drought, pollution and climate change irrespective of an election and it benefits nobody for the best experts to be removed from the public debates on these issues.

Many senior scientists and science communication officers believe that the guidance on purdah is confusing and is being applied in an ad hoc and arbitrary way which is not in the public interest.  We therefore seek explicit written clarification on the following points:

  • Purdah does not apply to scientists employed by universities. They should be free to speak to the media and the public, even if they are funded by a research council or they are a member of an independent SAC, as long as they comment with their university affiliation.
  • Research-active scientists in non-departmental bodies (such as scientists working in research council institutes) should not be restricted from commenting on new research or answering media enquiries about breaking science news.

We call for early clarification of the guidelines for the current general election, and for a full consultation and review on purdah rules directly afterwards. It is clear that there is widespread confusion and unease about purdah rules as applied to science and we believe that such a review would be in the public interest and warmly welcomed by the research community.


Yours sincerely,

Science Media Centre

Association of British Science Writers

Royal Statistical Society

Royal Institution of Great Britain

British Pharmacological Society

Campaign for Science and Engineering

British Science Association

Association of Medical Research Charities

Sense about Science

Medical Journalists’ Association

The Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication

Full Fact


Additional signatories

The Physiological Society

Society for Applied Microbiology




Fiona Fox

19 May 2017

Dear Fiona

I am writing in response to your letter dated 17 May 2017, on the subject of pre-election guidance and its application to the scientific community.

The long-established principles underpinning the pre-election guidance are designed to maintain the impartiality of the Civil Service, ensure the appropriate use of official resources, and avoid competing with parliamentary candidates for the attention of the public during the election campaign. It is therefore appropriate that public bodies are subject to restrictions on their public activity during this period of sensitivity. As such, staff members of NDPBs should not comment publicly on politically controversial matters, or proactively contribute to debates on high profile issues during this time.

However, the principles are not, and have never been about restricting commentary from independent academics. The guidance also makes clear that essential government business should continue.

It is for individual public bodies to apply the principles of the pre-election guidance within their organisations. Research Councils UK (RCUK) have produced their own supplementary guidelines, providing more specific advice about how the restrictions of this period affect their community. The RCUK guidelines make it clear that Research Council funded researchers wishing to comment during the election period should do so under their university affiliation rather than the Research Councils. This is consistent with central guidance.

It is standard practice, after an election, for the Cabinet Office to reflect on how the election guidance has operated in practice, and we will be doing so this time round. I do not believe a wider review or consultation is required.

If you have specific instances of where you feel the principles of the pre-election guidance have been improperly applied, I suggest that you contact Sue Gray, Director General, Propriety and Ethics in the Cabinet Office, who can be contacted on


Jeremy Heywood


The Science Media Centre then sent a response to Sir Jeremy’s reply.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*By commenting on this blog you agree to abide by our Terms and Conditions.