A question of policy
Nov. 3rd, 2009 07:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
[Poll #1480150]
Note - by "public" here, I mean to people outside of the company, like journalists or similar, not openly to people inside of the company.
Note - by "public" here, I mean to people outside of the company, like journalists or similar, not openly to people inside of the company.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 08:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 08:14 am (UTC)And if he's not an employee, how can he be sacked?
no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 08:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 08:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 08:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 08:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 09:04 am (UTC)I contend that the two positions are incompatible. An academic cannot only publish work that is in line with government policy whilst a government advisor apparently cannot publish anything that the government does not agree with.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 09:30 am (UTC)Government special advisers are paid, often very well paid.
SpAds also get to say things the government disagrees with; they're not civil servants and are not bound by the same rules as civil servants.
Many academics are in fact employed as civil servants; when this happens they tend to have discussions about getting a dispensation to continue to publish in their specialist areas.
A lot of them are employed as consultants anyway, in which case the rules covering civil servants don't entirely apply.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 09:40 am (UTC)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334948.stm
no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 10:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 12:51 pm (UTC)Johnson has been an arse, though.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 08:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 08:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 08:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 09:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 08:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 09:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 09:32 am (UTC)(I am my own employer, and I regularly play devil's advocate with myself in public.)
On the David Nutt thing: he's a scientist, on what is supposedly an advisory panel intended to feed unbiased scientific opinion into the Home Office's processes. He's not an employee but an external advisor whose credibility depends on the perception of his impartiality. Firing him for doing exactly what he's supposed to do, i.e. offering opinions impartially? Not clever: to external third parties it indicates that it is the Home Office that lacks impartiality (and common sense), not the advisor.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 09:36 am (UTC)I think this Times comment piece is quite good: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6899953.ece
no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 10:06 am (UTC)I'm part of a network for young career researchers and policy makers. There does seem to be a system of research feeds into policy, but does not necessarily dictate policy. Policy is in turn decided by MPs who are trying to do the right thing by the public, the research, the past, the current climate (and possibly their future votes).
It seems like most people are doing their best in a tricky situations. I think invoking change can be very difficult.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 02:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 02:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-04 12:35 am (UTC)Should he have been forced to resign? A matter for the politicians I would think, though it doesn't appear to me that the issue is playing out particularly well for them at the moment.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 09:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 10:10 am (UTC)The David Nutt thing of course is totally different, but that's already been addressed here.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 11:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 12:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 01:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 01:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 12:14 pm (UTC)If I was baselessly abusive about them - and managed to do so in a way that the powers that be actually noticed - I'd expect to get a bit of a hard time about it, but sacking me would take an awful lot of work. If I was them I'd just use management discretion to minimise the damage and make my life hard.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 01:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 01:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 12:30 pm (UTC)-- Steve's fortunate to have a fairly short decision chain and a boss with good ethics, so concerns get addressed rather quickly and he's not likely to have to "go public".
Re: question of policy
Date: 2009-11-03 12:42 pm (UTC)Re: question of policy
Date: 2009-11-03 12:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 02:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 02:29 pm (UTC)Were you, for instance, to state on a blog or in an interview for a newspaper that you thought that something your employers did was dumb.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 02:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 02:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 04:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 03:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 03:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 08:05 pm (UTC)However, in the specific instance you're referring to, then no, he shouldn't have been sacked. He's there as an external advisor, not an employer.