My newly launched report on how we can safeguard the independence of our important scientific and evidence-generating institutions - not least so they can hold government to account
Excellent work, thank you. I wish you the very best of luck in achieving your goals. I just wish others were thinking about ‘bolting the stable door before the horse bolts’! If not now it could be too late!
This is an important study. We know the pillars of our democracy are very weak. Why did you leave out the other voters though? The Green Party, SNP, Plaid Cymru...? Is it because you felt their voices were of no significance?
Some bodies are PSREs as well as having other roles. There was a review in 2019 and specific guidance on their review which is clear public body reviews should be led by someone with subject expertise in their case. Only guidance of course but the principle has been recognised.
Paul Tucker has articulated the issues around unelected leaders in public bodies (starting from the Bank experience). His book is very long but he makes a good account in select committee and the Lords particularly look at these issues carefully. Finance is a difficult point and strife at ONS shows this is difficult to get right when expectations of services are fixed but spending is constrained.
NAO has some very nice guidance around effectiveness of regulators (another responsibility of some of these bodies). But there are several different features of this problem, and now the EIC is supposed promote ethical standards in all public bodies. Another point is we need these bodies to be both well-informed and well-intentioned; usually the suspicion is on the latter whereas the former can be taken for granted.
I really dig this work. I dig it so much I got some questions aimed at discussion!
I’d be very interested to hear more about the practical challenges involved in implementing reforms. Particularly since Parliamentary and executive incentives might conflict with efforts to build statutory safeguards. Are there examples from other countries that show how cultural norms or political pressures have influenced the independence of such bodies over time?
Also, I was struck by the point that independence is shaped not just by law, but also by professional culture and public attitudes. What sort of institutional or leadership behaviours have you seen that help protect scientific integrity in practice, especially under political pressure or shifting priorities?
I think the UKHSA is already politically motivated right? Or they wouldn't keep denying that Covid is airborne. I trust them very little on anything.
MHRA and Food Standards Agency already very weak and do nothing about emulsifiers& allergen food additives in food and medicine as far as I can see, from my repeated emails on the subject! Its even worse when you eat out, i've recently found out, they LOAD the food with many different types of emulsfiers and you wouldn't know because its not listed on the menus!!
In case you aren't aware, emulsifiers cause gut inflammation like colitis and probably responsible for 20% of the population having IBS - but we will just suffer in silence while doctors continue to gaslight us!
Thank you so much Christina for identifying this threat and addressing it at this stage, and as ever, for explaining the issues so clearly. I trust that your analysis will be acted upon in good time.
Phenomenally important work, thank you for doing it. As you say, complacency has been with us for too long. We need only look across the Atlantic to see how quickly everything that we take for granted can fall apart.
We need to be looking around the world and noting how international and non-government organizations are also vulnerable…especially with the US’s unprecedented retreat from cooperation and mounting violations of charters and treaties.
You have certainly identified the problem, whilst your proposal goes someway towards a solution I feel that individuals need to take personal responsibility for their decisions to reach an acceptable position.
Govt and other officials advice should not be blindly accepted. The Govt, including ALBs, have their own agenda, which is not necessarily your agenda, and I am sorry to say are not adverse to pysops and other misinformations.
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts as the saying goes.
Re: the ONS. I guess this is shown by the UK parliament's Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry, ‘The work of the UK Statistics Authority.’ Prof Daniel Muijs (QUB) and I had our submission accepted: 'Evidence of absence: The Critical Data Gap on People Ageing Without Children in UK Statistics': https://bit.ly/4jVJWey
Do you remember the start of "Swine flu" in the UK? The Health Secretary said that everybody who got swine flu would be given antiviral.
We knew that antiviral, to be effective, had to be given early. Ideally before exposure (they're very effective used prophylactically, eg in care homes ), next best before symptoms start, and they may have some (diminishing) benefit if given within two or three days of symptom onset. We had no infrastructure for getting antiviral to people promptly. I was told to run this programme in Birmingham. The earliest we were able to get antiviral to people was 7-8 days after symptom onset. Happily, this didn't appear to drive viral resistance as we feared. But it was completely wasteful; and we were not permitted to prioritise people at higher risk, as would have been rational. Yet - flying in the face of science - the HPA bosses continued to claim that this was a sensible and worthwhile policy. So the political capture of that institution (which subsequently morphed into PHE and then into UKHSA) happened a long time ago.
Excellent work, thank you. I wish you the very best of luck in achieving your goals. I just wish others were thinking about ‘bolting the stable door before the horse bolts’! If not now it could be too late!
This is an important study. We know the pillars of our democracy are very weak. Why did you leave out the other voters though? The Green Party, SNP, Plaid Cymru...? Is it because you felt their voices were of no significance?
Some bodies are PSREs as well as having other roles. There was a review in 2019 and specific guidance on their review which is clear public body reviews should be led by someone with subject expertise in their case. Only guidance of course but the principle has been recognised.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-sector-research-establishment-value-framework/guidance-on-assessing-performance-and-value-of-public-sector-research-establishments
Paul Tucker has articulated the issues around unelected leaders in public bodies (starting from the Bank experience). His book is very long but he makes a good account in select committee and the Lords particularly look at these issues carefully. Finance is a difficult point and strife at ONS shows this is difficult to get right when expectations of services are fixed but spending is constrained.
https://committees.parliament.uk/event/13519/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/
NAO has some very nice guidance around effectiveness of regulators (another responsibility of some of these bodies). But there are several different features of this problem, and now the EIC is supposed promote ethical standards in all public bodies. Another point is we need these bodies to be both well-informed and well-intentioned; usually the suspicion is on the latter whereas the former can be taken for granted.
https://www.nao.org.uk/insights/principles-of-effective-regulation/
Wonderful work - particularly in anticipation of any Trump-like shenanigans 🙏
I really dig this work. I dig it so much I got some questions aimed at discussion!
I’d be very interested to hear more about the practical challenges involved in implementing reforms. Particularly since Parliamentary and executive incentives might conflict with efforts to build statutory safeguards. Are there examples from other countries that show how cultural norms or political pressures have influenced the independence of such bodies over time?
Also, I was struck by the point that independence is shaped not just by law, but also by professional culture and public attitudes. What sort of institutional or leadership behaviours have you seen that help protect scientific integrity in practice, especially under political pressure or shifting priorities?
I think the UKHSA is already politically motivated right? Or they wouldn't keep denying that Covid is airborne. I trust them very little on anything.
MHRA and Food Standards Agency already very weak and do nothing about emulsifiers& allergen food additives in food and medicine as far as I can see, from my repeated emails on the subject! Its even worse when you eat out, i've recently found out, they LOAD the food with many different types of emulsfiers and you wouldn't know because its not listed on the menus!!
In case you aren't aware, emulsifiers cause gut inflammation like colitis and probably responsible for 20% of the population having IBS - but we will just suffer in silence while doctors continue to gaslight us!
Thank you so much Christina for identifying this threat and addressing it at this stage, and as ever, for explaining the issues so clearly. I trust that your analysis will be acted upon in good time.
Phenomenally important work, thank you for doing it. As you say, complacency has been with us for too long. We need only look across the Atlantic to see how quickly everything that we take for granted can fall apart.
We need to be looking around the world and noting how international and non-government organizations are also vulnerable…especially with the US’s unprecedented retreat from cooperation and mounting violations of charters and treaties.
You have certainly identified the problem, whilst your proposal goes someway towards a solution I feel that individuals need to take personal responsibility for their decisions to reach an acceptable position.
Govt and other officials advice should not be blindly accepted. The Govt, including ALBs, have their own agenda, which is not necessarily your agenda, and I am sorry to say are not adverse to pysops and other misinformations.
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts as the saying goes.
The Climate Change Committee?
Re: the ONS. I guess this is shown by the UK parliament's Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry, ‘The work of the UK Statistics Authority.’ Prof Daniel Muijs (QUB) and I had our submission accepted: 'Evidence of absence: The Critical Data Gap on People Ageing Without Children in UK Statistics': https://bit.ly/4jVJWey
Do you remember the start of "Swine flu" in the UK? The Health Secretary said that everybody who got swine flu would be given antiviral.
We knew that antiviral, to be effective, had to be given early. Ideally before exposure (they're very effective used prophylactically, eg in care homes ), next best before symptoms start, and they may have some (diminishing) benefit if given within two or three days of symptom onset. We had no infrastructure for getting antiviral to people promptly. I was told to run this programme in Birmingham. The earliest we were able to get antiviral to people was 7-8 days after symptom onset. Happily, this didn't appear to drive viral resistance as we feared. But it was completely wasteful; and we were not permitted to prioritise people at higher risk, as would have been rational. Yet - flying in the face of science - the HPA bosses continued to claim that this was a sensible and worthwhile policy. So the political capture of that institution (which subsequently morphed into PHE and then into UKHSA) happened a long time ago.