Britain’s scientists must not be gagged

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...

Just to clarify here, there's no law. This is a clause being added to government grants about how the funds may be used.

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...).

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.

You're absolutely welcome to present alternate substantive sources on the same topic. That's a great thing to do on HN. But please don't present them with ideological vitriol. When you do that you make thoughtful discussion much less likely, and that is a toxic effect here. Political flamewars, which is what we'll get, have no place on HN.