Censoring government scientists and the role of consensus in science advice: a structured process for scientific advice in governments and peer-review in academia should shape science communication strategies.

Abstract

Before the Second World War, science advocacy in politics was rare and usually only in the context of religious or philosophical debates. It seldom affected political decisions, elections or policies [1], [2]. During the war, the technological arms race with Nazi Germany gave scientific advisors great influence over military strategy and political decisions, in particular in the USA and the UK. After 1945, many governments continued to use either permanent or ad hoc scientific advisors, who shaped both research policy and influenced political decision‐making and discourse. An early example of actual political advocacy by scientists dates back to the 1964 US presidential race between Barry Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson, when “Scientists and Engineers for Johnson‐Humphreys” successfully campaigned against Goldwater's pro‐nuclear weapons position. Yet, even then, many scientists worried about the politicization of science, arguing that the integrity of scientific insights could only be maintained if science remained apolitical. Notwithstanding, scientists are increasingly called upon to participate in public policy discussions. Science advocacy has become commonly involved in issues ranging from the regulation of genetically modified foods to public health policies, to understanding and mitigating the effects of global climate change. Advocacy gives scientists an opportunity to shape political discourse and provide a rational and informed perspective, but it can lead to conflict between scientific advice and government policy. Although there remains a desire to keep science separate from politics, many scientists worry that, unless they openly voice their opinion and concerns, political decisions will not reflect their perspectives and could even distort scientific findings [3], [4]. For example, stem cell research was a polarizing topic throughout the 1990s and 2000s: In 1994, a scientific committee advising the director of the US National Institutes of Health devised a strategy to inform politicians who …