
Confusion reigns as UK scientists face government 'gagging' clause - Amorymeltzer
http://www.nature.com/news/confusion-reigns-as-uk-scientists-face-government-gagging-clause-1.19454
======
afreak
Conservatives in the UK are not alone; they're taking a page from the Tories
in Canada where Harper did the same thing.

[http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/faq-the-issues-around-
muzz...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/faq-the-issues-around-muzzling-
government-scientists-1.3079537)

~~~
rwmj
We can only hope there is a backlash resulting in the election of a liberal
party after this one.

------
nonbel
>"But unless an exception is given to researchers, Ward adds, they will face
having to use their own funds to do anything that could be considered lobbying
or influencing policy."

What is the problem? It makes no sense for the government to give money to
someone who uses it to lobby the government. It doesn't make sense if a
charity does it, a church does it, or a researcher does it. What am I missing?
Grant money should be spent on research, not lobbying...

~~~
weavejester
I guess it depends on what "influencing policy" means. Say a scientist using
public funds happens to find results that contradict current government
policy. Publishing the results could be considered as influencing policy,
particularly if the opposition party picks it up and runs with it.

~~~
nonbel
I think we need to know what _doesn 't_ count as influencing policy, since it
seems like that could cover just about everything.

~~~
dsp1234
Isn't that what the 'Confusion reigns' in the title referring to?

FTA:

"On 6 February, the government announced that any groups in receipt of public
money will be banned from using those funds to attempt to influence either the
government or Parliament."

"In theory, this could mean that scientists at UK universities are not allowed
to tell ministers what the policy implications of their work are, or respond
to consultations that touch on their area of interest — potentially removing
their ability to comment on everything from climate change to medical
regulation."

I'm not 100% sure on how the UK works, but in the US, if there is some new
research that is done, and I'm invited to White House (or even to meet with a
local senator, or give a talk as a conference with government personnel
present), it's likely that the money to travel, speaker fees, etc are paid
with grant money. This is generally 'normal'. What's the point of doing any
research when I can't actually talk about the results with the people who are
most likely going to be able to use it (since they paid for it)

~~~
nonbel
Not that I know anything specific about this law, but I don't believe this
would cover discussing your work in the presence of government personnel.

The same would have to apply to any charity that happened to discuss it's
success or needs. What if they use the money to put up a webpage and
government personnel happen to click on it?

It sounds like a very poorly written law in general if that is the case.

~~~
dsp1234
I was specifically envisioning something like a government sponsored, or
affiliated conference like speaking at an NOAA, DOD, etc workshop (which could
fall under "attempt to influence ... government... parties"), which again is
where the confusion comes from, and why the associated organizations are
trying to bring clarity.

And for clarity, it's not a law, but new wording being put into all grant
contracts. In it's entirety reads:

"The following costs are not Eligible Expenditure: Payments that support
activity intended to influence or attempt to influence Parliament, government
or political parties, or attempting to influence the awarding or renewal of
contracts and grants, or attempting to influence legislative or regulatory
action."[0]

[0] - [https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-
new-...](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-new-clause-
to-be-inserted-into-grant-agreements)

------
rwmj
It's amusing that UK political parties are also "groups in receipt of public
money".

------
x5n1
Great law should have exemption for certain things.

~~~
vkou
Yet, oddly enough, it does not prohibit government contractors, or recipients
of tax breaks/subsidies from lobbying...

