U. K. Scientists Fear Government Will Muzzle Research Reports

LONDON--Gerald Draper is a worried man. Head of the Childhood Cancer Research Group at Oxford University, he often speaks at meetings of parents who live near nuclear installations, helping them understand why the risk of radiation-induced leukemia in their children is small. It is a daunting task, because the question of whether leukemia rates rise around nuclear power plants is one of the most contentious scientific issues in Britain. But now, the British government has made Draper’s job even more difficult. It is trying to make him sign a contract that could prevent him from publishing his work. If his research showed even small clusters of leukemia, would the government muzzle him, Draper wonders? And if so, what parent would ever believe that he is telling the truth about nuclear power? The new research contracts, say Draper and scores of other scientists across Britain, represent an ominous and serious threat to academic freedom. So far, only the British Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS) has added the power to ban publishing to its research contracts. And none of the scientists who have signed such contracts have actually been barred from writing up their work. Yet because of its sweeping implications, the change has touched off a howl of protest. Complained the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals, "The increased power to control and restrict the publication of publicly-funded research can be regarded as serious restraint on academic freedom which could affect the quality and credibility of research." Says Geoffrey Rose, one of Britain’s most distinguished epidemiologists. "Like many academics, I follow, and shall continue to follow, a simple principle, namely, never to undertake research without freedom to publish. I shall be sorry if in the future this precludes collaboration with colleagues supported by the DHSS." British scientists’ impassioned defense of their academic freedom could have easily been predicted. So why did the DHSS, which awards annual grants of about $20 million (about 5% of research in British universities), persist in adding the new condition to its contracts? The public line is that the change is just unimportant bureaucratic spring cleaning. But that explanation does not persuade many people, including former DHSS chief scientist Sir Douglas Black. "Why make a change which alters nothing?" he retorts. The real reasons for the changes, most scientists believe, are the Thatcher government’s obsession with secrecy and its desire to centralize power. "Control of publication can only imply that the DHSS wants to have the ability to suppress information potentially damaging to the department," says one DHSS researcher. The government also seems keen to curtail the independence of the universities. In the first draft of its "great" Education Reform Bill (widely known as GERBIL) last year, the government boldly proposed giving itself the power to tell the council that will disperse funds to universities what it wants university researchers to do. The draft bill caused tremendous disquiet among researchers. No one was reassured by the government’s protestations that it never intended to use these powers. Strong pressure from the universities led the government to back off earlier this year, but academics are still worried about the creeping erosion of their freedom caused by other changes in the bill. And they fear that what has happened so far is just the beginning. In an interview last month, Norman Tebbit, the former chairman of the Conservative party, made a thinly veiled threat. "The university sector is, I think, anxious to remain as misinformed as possible for as long as possible," he said. "Yes, we have a long way to go there." In fact, researchers on both sides of the Atlantic are worried about threats to academic freedom. In the United States, President Reagan’s attempts to bottle up the flow of information on superconductivity research are making scientists nervous. The underlying problem is that governments have a different view from scientists on the reasons for doing research. The Thatcher government, for example, sponsors research primarily to advance its policies and to produce economic benefit. "There now seems to be a deliberate policy of downgrading the pursuit of knowledge in deference to the pursuit of affluence," charges Sir George Porter, president of the Royal Society and a Nobel laureate in chemistry. Many researchers believe that the effects of the new DHSS contracts will be disastrous. Their greatest worry is simply that they might be prevented publishing research that conflicts with government policy. Take the case of statistician Alison Macfarlane of the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit in Oxford. Macfarlane and coworker Rona Campbell concluded last year that “there is no evidence to support the claim that the safest policy is for all women to give birth in hospitals.” This directly contradicted DHSS policy of encouraging delivery in hospitals. So the DHSS suggested that the researchers alter their conclusions to make them "less inflammatory." With the new contract, the agency could insist that such conclusions not be published unless they are changed. Richard Smith is assistant editor of the British Medical Journal. New Rules Seen As Serious Threats To Academic Freedom

U. K. Scientists Fear Government Will Muzzle Research Reports

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of