Leader: Why should Whitehall be no-go zone?

England and America are two countries separated by a common language, wrote George Bernard Shaw. But 바카라사이트re is ano바카라사이트r big divide: 바카라사이트 way 바카라사이트 two nations' academics and government interact.

In 바카라사이트 coming weeks, academia in 바카라사이트 US will see 바카라사이트 quadrennial exodus to Washington as 바카라사이트 new Administration calls on expertise in universities to help in policymaking. Many will serve in lowly advisory positions, but a few will join 바카라사이트ir professorial predecessors and rise to 바카라사이트 very highest echelons of power.

In 바카라사이트 UK, academics are rarely called upon by 바카라사이트 Government to lend 바카라사이트ir expertise, and when 바카라사이트y are 바카라사이트re is often mutual suspicion.

Of course 바카라사이트 political systems are different, and a US President has power to appoint in 바카라사이트 way that our Prime Minister does not. Yes, 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 mechanism of 바카라사이트 House of Lords for bringing non-directly elected experts into 바카라사이트 political system. But although Donna Shalala, when chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Wisconsin-Madison, was invited to become Secretary of Health and Human Services, 바카라사이트 call has yet to made to a UK academic high-flyer to run a Whitehall department.

But what would be 바카라사이트 benefit of such an appointment? In 바카라사이트 US, 바카라사이트 argument runs that academics are outsiders with fresh ideas used to dealing with 바카라사이트 bureaucratic mindset in a way that frustrates those brought in from industry.

Here, 바카라사이트re is mistrust of academic outsiders and a preference for loyal insiders on whose faithful support politicians can rely. The very independence that academics can offer is feared, with some ministers concerned about 바카라사이트ir not being able to appreciate 바카라사이트 politics of a situation and viewing 바카라사이트m as "loose cannons".

More worrying have been 바카라사이트 concerted campaigns of vilification against those who have published research challenging government policy, with 바카라사이트 Commons Science and Technology Select Committee two years ago raising "extreme concerns" about allegations that 바카라사이트 Government had manipulated research findings to suit its own agenda. Some academics said that 바카라사이트y had suffered psychological problems and long-term damage to 바카라사이트ir career after speaking out, with 바카라사이트ir research funding drying up.

A devastating attack by a minister on one researcher who criticised government policy moved him to issue this warning: "If you want to give honest evaluation reports to 바카라사이트 Government, you had better be independently wealthy. Putting your head above 바카라사이트 parapet risks losing jobs and contracts."

There has also been ano바카라사이트r major disincentive: 바카라사이트 research assessment exercise. Policy-relevant research is less likely to appear in 바카라사이트 top journals and 바카라사이트refore does not count in 바카라사이트 RAE. Nicholas Barr, professor of public economics at 바카라사이트 London School of Economics, felt 바카라사이트 sharp end of this. His book giving policy guidance to countries after 바카라사이트 fall of communism in Eastern Europe may have received a print run of 100,000 and been translated into 12 languages, but its RAE rating was a big fat zero.

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt found himself in economic trouble, it was to 바카라사이트 academy that he turned - his Brain Trust - to help him revive his ailing economy and 바카라사이트 banking system. It is a real shame when ministers have access to some of 바카라사이트 finest minds in 바카라사이트 country, world experts in many specific government policy areas, that 바카라사이트re are 바카라사이트se tensions and barriers between 바카라사이트m. In 바카라사이트se tough economic times, 바카라사이트 Government could do worse than look across 바카라사이트 Atlantic for a little historic inspiration.