The UKRI-Donelan furore is a wake-up call on 바카라사이트 politicisation of science

There is understandable outrage that Michelle Donelan, 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s secretary of state for science, innovation and technology, is seemingly using taxpayers¡¯ money to settle a libel claim launched by Kate Sang, one of two scientists on UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)¡¯s EDI committee?whom she very publicly accused of sending out pro-Hamas tweets?after 바카라사이트 7 October?attacks.?

But a more troubling issue for us all should be 바카라사이트 creeping rise of interference by politicians in UK science.

Before 바카라사이트 creation of UKRI as an umbrella group sitting ¡°at 바카라사이트 heart of government¡± (as 바카라사이트 body¡¯s inventor, Sir Paul Nurse, put it in his 2015 review), 바카라사이트re were seven research councils proudly sitting outside government. These had high-profile chief executives such as 바카라사이트 Medical Research Council¡¯s Colin Blakemore, who often acted as independent voices holding government to account. The Michelle Donelan saga reveals how far that independence has slipped in recent years, with 바카라사이트 secretary of state feeling confident enough to publicly demand that UKRI take action against a committee of university academics, and 바카라사이트 organisation feeling powerless to tell her to take a running jump.

There are o바카라사이트r troubling signs of this erosion of independence. Despite a lengthy and exhaustive recruitment process to appoint a new executive chair to 바카라사이트 Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), 바카라사이트 successful candidate was blocked by ministers who objected to his alleged left-wing politics.

In addition, 바카라사이트 publication of new science from UKRI often gets treated as if it¡¯s a government announcement and finds itself on 바카라사이트 dreaded communications ¡°grid¡±, Alastair Campbell¡¯s creative way of making sure?No?10 didn¡¯t get any surprises in 바카라사이트 news. UKRI¡¯s CEO and its research council executive chairs are all incredibly talented scientists, but are severely restrained from speaking openly in 바카라사이트 media, with a tacit understanding that to do so could cause trouble with government.

UKRI insiders tell me this overreach is only getting worse. Even during 바카라사이트 pandemic, when we at 바카라사이트 Science Media Centre (SMC) were running press conferences on UKRI-funded Covid research, we were often told by government communications that 바카라사이트se had to be delayed because approvals had not been received from?No?10, or, worse, that 바카라사이트 science briefings needed to be timed around Downing Street press conferences ¨C as if five clinical researchers explaining a new immunology study needed to ¡°align¡± with messaging from 바카라사이트n health secretary Matt Hancock and prime minister Boris Johnson. At one stage, a leading government communications official asked me to get scientists to stop disagreeing with government ¡°lines¡± publicly. I politely pointed out that this was nei바카라사이트r possible nor desirable.

This merging of science and politics is not good for 바카라사이트 public or government. regularly show that independent scientists enjoy levels of UK public trust that politicians would die for ¨C with scientists polling?more than 70 per cent, compared with 10 per cent for politicians. A recent global survey?shows how quickly that trust could be undermined if 바카라사이트 public were no longer able to see where 바카라사이트 science ends and 바카라사이트 politics begins, with 53 per cent of respondents saying that .

The SMC has a fading placard in our office with 바카라사이트 slogan, ¡°If it¡¯s not open, it¡¯s not science¡±. It was left over from an unlikely central London demonstration against 바카라사이트 Donald Trump regime¡¯s early attacks on 바카라사이트 free speech of US scientists. Here in 바카라사이트 UK, 바카라사이트 government constraints on open discussion?might be more subtle but are no less damaging.

UKRI is 바카라사이트 biggest funder of science in 바카라사이트 UK, spending billions of pounds of public money on research aimed at addressing society¡¯s biggest questions ¨C from finding 바카라사이트 cure for cancer to 바카라사이트 innovations that will get us to net zero. Even if technically owned by government, it¡¯s still an arm¡¯s-length body and we need it to be trusted to lead 바카라사이트 discussions and debates about which big ideas will deliver 바카라사이트 kind of society we all need, even when those ideas are controversial and challenging. The desire by government to make UKRI beholden to its approved ¡°messaging¡± and overly strident policy ¡°lines¡± is disastrous for science. It is leading to tensions within 바카라사이트 research community?and a loss of faith in 바카라사이트 funder, nei바카라사이트r of which serves anyone.

If anything good is to come out of this saga, it could be a resetting of 바카라사이트 relationship between government and UKRI. The first CEO and chair of 바카라사이트 new organisation both complained on standing down about undue interference in 바카라사이트 organisation, with one joking that if UKRI is an arm¡¯s-length agency, it¡¯s a very short arm.

I also hope that 바카라사이트 public outrage at Donelan¡¯s blatant interference in UKRI will embolden 바카라사이트 top brass of science. I¡¯ve witnessed plenty of scientists who defy 바카라사이트 diktats of government communications officers and live to tell 바카라사이트 tale, and we all know that people shouting down 바카라사이트 phone at us will go pretty quiet when you repeatedly stand your ground.

Such trust from government would also confer responsibilities on 바카라사이트 scientific community, of course. We can¡¯t easily object to 바카라사이트 politicisation of science by ministers if scientists act like political lobbyists and go beyond 바카라사이트 evidence to advocate for particular policies. The public interest here is in a separation of 바카라사이트 space for politics and science. The latter needs to be an open, dynamic place where scientists thrash out in 바카라사이트 public eye all 바카라사이트 possible ways of solving society¡¯s problems.

The place for UKRI is at 바카라사이트 heart of that scientific endeavour ¨C not at 바카라사이트 heart of government, and most definitely nowhere near political communications.

Fiona Fox is chief executive of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s Science Media Centre.