
Britain’s scientists must not be gagged - Osiris30
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/17/britains-scientists-must-not-be-gagged
======
frobozz
From the clause:

> activity intended to influence or attempt to influence Parliament,
> Government or political parties

From Stephen Pinker's "The Language Instinct"

>As you are reading these words, you are taking part in one of the wonders of
the natural world. For you and I belong to a species with a remarkable
ability: we can shape events in each other's brains with exquisite precision.
... That ability is language.

If we accept that Parliaments, Governments and Parties are made up of people;
then taken together these two quotes imply that recipients of grants must also
have a separate source of funding in order to say or write anything that could
be heard or read by an MP or party activist. Regardless of the subject.

Alternatively, the clause would only be enforceable for communications that
are directly addressed to MPs or party members. If you publish something
openly, or to a subscription service, then, when challenged, you could simply
say "You weren't meant to read that, it was aimed at the general
public/academic community only".

Unfortunately, due to the poor wording, we'll have to wait for the courts to
work it out.

------
Overtonwindow
If true, this has to be the most asinine idea in government ever. If the
government produces a report that says a department, program, or policy is
ineffective, what better source of research to provide to policymakers?! Using
government research against the government is gold!

Source: I'm a lobbyist. GAO, CRS, and CBO reports are absolutely gold mines
when it comes to discussing the issues with harmful policies.

~~~
IanCal
There's nothing stopping the work from being used, as far as I can tell. This
is a clause about how the money from the grant can be spent.

------
iamben
What am I missing here? What's the logic behind the government's decision in
the first place?

Edit: thanks for the clarification HN!

~~~
HillRat
The idea appears to be that gov't funds cannot be used to lobby for political
or policy changes, so that, for example, funds given to Greenpeace would have
to be spent on non-political activities. But the rule is so broadly written
that it basically poisons any gov't-funded research; rather than simply
regulating the use of funds, it would prevent a researcher from speaking out
in favor or against policies based on their research. This _probably_ isn't by
design. Probably.

~~~
IanCal
> rather than simply regulating the use of funds, it would prevent a
> researcher from speaking out in favor or against policies based on their
> research.

I'm not sure it does, the clause is about "allowable expenditure":

> “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”

[https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/498271/Implementation_Guidance_for_Departments_on_Anti-
Lobbying_Clause.pdf)

------
DarkContinent
Goodbye, economics, political science, sociology, atmospheric science, civil
engineering...the list goes on. Your insights were welcome in their day, but
we must now bid farewell. Godspeed on your merry way.

------
iam-TJ
Although I dislike the tone of this the underlying intention is balanced -
preventing use of tax-payer funds for lobbying or seeking contracts. They can
still do those things using funds from other sources.

I disagree with it because in the case of health and scientific research
(often funded by tax-payers) that often lead to conclusions that should
properly influence policy-making, if the people most informed about that
research are even partially hobbled from speaking as experts (due to actual or
feared conflict with this rule) then the entire country is worse off, and the
tax-payer funding may well have a lower cost/benefit ratio.

The way it is drafted throws a catch-all over areas that haven't been fully
considered and as in many other cases the civil servants and politicians leave
it to, and beyond, the last minute to make clarifications.

I think the two most important quotes from the guidance are:

Q3: Should the clause be included for all types of grant recipient – e.g.
public sector organisations and individuals?

A: Yes, the presumption is that this clause is always included. Grant
recipients are still free to engage in lobbying but should not fund this sort
of activity from government grants unless it is specifically part of the terms
of the grant itself. Grant recipients who wish to undertake activities
expressly prohibited by this clause should raise and use separate funds to do
so.

Q4: What if an organisation receives 100% of its funding from government?

A: Where an organisation receives all of its funding from government it
should, first, consider whether it has power to engage in activities
prohibited by this clause. If it does, and the organisation wishes to
undertake these activities, they should consider alternative funding sources.
In the very rare case where the organisation is unable to raise funds from any
other source (e.g. because it lacks powers to do so) Ministers may consider on
a case by case basis whether the clause should be omitted, or qualified.

[0]
[https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/498271/Implementation_Guidance_for_Departments_on_Anti-
Lobbying_Clause.pdf)

------
marcoperaza
This is the full text of the new requirement, for all recipients of government
grants: _“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.”_ Source:
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12143479/Charities-...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12143479/Charities-
to-be-banned-from-using-public-funds-to-lobby-ministers.html) .

Sounds totally reasonable to me. You're free to lobby the government and run
propaganda campaigns, but not with taxpayers' money that you're supposed to be
using for research.

------
cbeach
Yet more leftist political spin from the Guardian hits the HN front page. For
a bit of balance, here's the equivalent story from a rightwing (aka taxpayer)
perspective:

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12143479/Charities-...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12143479/Charities-
to-be-banned-from-using-public-funds-to-lobby-ministers.html)

~~~
dTal
That Telegraph article is so full of spin I'm surprised bits aren't flying
off.

In one corner we have a Cambridge zoologist, the head of the Science Media
Centre, policy and communications director at the Centre for Climate Change
Economics and Policy, Sir Martin Rees the astronomer royal, and director of
the Campaign for Science and Engineering. All either scientists or highly
reputable scientific institutions.

In the other corner we have "a right of centre thinkank[sic]", the Cabinet
Office minister, someone from the thinktank again, an MP, and "Gina Miller,
the founder of the True and Fair Foundation"; the last time The Telegraph
represented her in print was so libelous they were forced to retract some of
it
([http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/finance/news/content/21277/dai...](http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/finance/news/content/21277/daily_telegraph_admits_flaws_in_charitable_spending_report_by_publishing_clarification)).

Finally there's this bit:

"That followed the death of Olive Cooke, 92, one of Britain's longest serving
poppy sellers, who took her own life after receiving repeated requests for
money from charities."

Wow, really? Let's click that link, read some more about this poor old lady
who was badgered to death by charities:

"An inquest later found that she had taken her own life, disclosing that she
suffered from depression and had breast cancer... The report makes clear that
the charity tactics were not responsible for her death..."

I see. Didn't stop them from spinning an entire article out of that premise
though, did it? Thanks for posting this link. It has reinforced my conviction
that 1) this really is a deliberate attack and 2) the Telegraph is basically a
Tory mouthpiece. Oh, and I didn't downvote you, but I wouldn't be surprised if
those downvotes came from people taking offense at the suggestion that only
right-wingers pay taxes.

~~~
DanBC
Suicide is complex and it's wrong for people who didn't know her to speculate
on what caused her death by suicide.

But we should probably remember that her death has caused considerable changes
in the way that charities are allowed to communicate with people who've
donated to them in the past, with debate in parliament and extra guidance from
ICO.

Inquests are definitely a sub-optimal way to get information about a person's
last days.

------
rolandino
The thinking, such that it is, is broadly this: the government funds research,
therefore it is in favor of the research, therefore it is a waste of such
(scarce) funds having the recipients lobbying the said government in favor of
the findings, given the government was in favor in the first place.

This is the best explanation I've come across.

Of course, anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence will see that this is
either incredibly stupid, or incredibly devious.

Given the trajectory of the current UK government (for example privatising the
probation service whilst bragging that not only did it not have any evidence
this such a plan was a good thing, and that it was not going to look, because
sometimes trusting 'gut instinct' is a smart idea), this has all the hallmarks
of shutting down dissenting voices, rather than trying to spend money wisely.

