EVIDENCE

AFTERWORD
by Tracey Brown
The findings of Sir Stephen’s inquiry may reassure some
people: it seems there isn’t evidence that research
is frequently withheld from public discussion. There are
rules that stipulate prompt publication and there are
times when difficult (read politically awkward) research
is published and handled well. Some positive points
that we can hang onto along
the challenging road ahead.
Sir Stephen set
out to investigate
suppression
but found weak
rules and chaotic
systems.
But we should not be reassured,
we should be alarmed. Sir Stephen
set out to investigate suppression
but found weak rules and chaotic
systems. It turns out that we don’t
know what has become of millions
of pounds of governmentcommissioned
research.
Government itself doesn’t know: some departments have
no idea how much research they have commissioned,
whether it was published, or where it all is now.
Just as alarming is the alacrity with which some parts
of government put up apparently insurmountable obstacles
to doing things that their peers in others manage without
a problem. The sky has not fallen in at departments that
maintain a research register. They continue to commission
research, with the advantage of then knowing whether
it’s been published — and where it is.
Sense about Science spoke with the Cabinet Office
and others about including a register in transparency
plans when Sir Stephen first explored it early in the
inquiry. We will respond to his recommendations
by pressing firmly and publicly for it.
A register, along with the recommended clearer
contracts and rules about publication, will give
the public confidence that information isn’t being kept
from them and give researchers confidence in working
with government.
What of political manoeuvring? Sir Stephen says
of course it influences publication of research,
but he has cast it in a new light. When research isn’t
published, it is not the confidence of the special advisers
and political communicators winning through, but rather
their lack of confidence. So the report advocates
a smarter approach to communicating research
in a political context. I’m so glad about this. Sense about
Science works with the widest range of public groups
on the most difficult issues. We find it puzzling that
policy makers go in search of public trust and confidence
— which is often why they commission independent
research in the first place — and yet won’t trust the public
with a discussion about the findings.
I’m sure they don’t want to be in that position, and anyhow
transparency is here to stay. This is an opportunity
not only to recover millions of pounds of wasted
research but to give politicians the out they need —
publish or be damned.
Tracey Brown is the director of Sense about Science
37 AFTERWORD