by The head of a UK government science body at the center of a libel scandal has called for “creative dissent” and a higher standard of public discourse, with less polarization and blame between scientists and politicians.
Ottoline Leyser, managing director of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), said it was vital for policy makers, scientists and scientists, with so much at stake for the planet and given the need for science to drive the transition to a low carbon economy. the public to be able to communicate.
“We need to work harder to build higher quality spaces for public debate and dissent, [for] an active debate where people listen to each other,” she said in an interview. “[We need to] to create environments, situations, where people feel comfortable confronting them, where disagreement is considered a good thing. That is a quality research environment. The basic creative dissonance is what we need.”
Leyser came under fire last year from Michelle Donelan, the science secretary, who X accused two academics on the social media platform – Professor Kate Sang, of Heriot-Watt University, and Kamna Patel, of University College London – of “views share extremists” . Donelan expressed “shame and anger” at being appointed to a specialist advisory group for Research England, which falls under UKRI.
The Minister published a pressure letter to Leyser, who investigated the charges. The investigation found no wrongdoing and Sang brought a defamation action against Donelan. On Wednesday, while the Guardian was interviewing Leyser, news of the libel settlement was published, and Donelan was forced to apologize and retract his statements. It also emerged that the £15,000 costs of Donelan’s legal defense were paid by the taxpayer.
The distress this incident has caused Leyser is obvious but she remains stoic and tries not to take it personally. “When you’re doing a job like this, you’re wearing a CEO hat, and that’s what people talk about,” she said.
What would she do to combat the polarization? “I’m tempted to ban Twitter,” she said. “But that’s definitely not the answer. It is important that it is easy to hear a wide range of voices.”
She added: “There’s a serious aspect to that, which is the quality of public discourse, which has been greatly enhanced by social media as a means of interaction.”
That could cause problems, she said. “Social media is a wonderful thing, it’s a very powerful thing, but it makes it easy to increase people’s anger.”
People in the public eye should be able to debate better, she said, not individuals. “If you are academics, if you are in business, if you are in government, we are all in very privileged positions. In the context of research and innovation, we should have the tools to address these constructive quality discussion points, disagreements.”
Leyser acknowledged that the relationship between scientific research and the governments that pay for it will always be fraught, but he wants everyone involved to look for more constructive ways to approach problems.
“An organization like mine, which plays a fundamental role at the interface between government and the research and innovation system, our job is to support a great research and innovation system in the UK. That system must be one that everyone can contribute to and that everyone will benefit from,” she said.
“Sitting in that nexus, you can’t help but get caught up in a wide variety of blame narratives of one kind or another, and polarized opinions. Parts of it [the communities involved] very, very angry. I understand why, and anger is a natural human emotion, but in reality it is not very easy to change from an attitude of anger. It drives people away.”
Leyser, a leading biologist before taking up this role, will leave UKRI in June and the government is already looking for a successor. There have been strong hints that ministers are looking for a businessman rather than a scientist this time. Some scientists have expressed concern that the government is trying to fill the post with one of its supporters before the general election, echoing recent rows over other public appointments, including the chairman of the Climate Change Committee.
Leyser would not be drawn on the option. “It’s less about whether you come from an academic research background or a business background, and more about how you think about the joint effort. [of innovation]. Businesses have a collective effort,” she said. “On the other hand, there is a complete flip to that: research in an academic system is more open-ended precisely because it is not focused on any particular goal, and it is free. So you have an opportunity to be more disruptive.”
She was adamant on one point: whoever took over would have to focus closely on the UK’s goal of achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. UKRI’s annual expenditure of around £800m is £3bn dedicated to green areas, although the figure is in question. difficult to assess precisely because so many aspects of the research are interconnected. Leyser sees huge opportunities in areas such as the role of AI in the transition to a low-carbon world.
She said it was wrong to think the UK might have missed the boat on being a leader in low carbon innovation. “The huge opportunities, and the huge need for innovation in everything we do [to reach net zero]that means no boats will be lost, because so many boats will have to sail to do this work.”
