What I said is stating the obvious. It's not a stunning admission at all.
Few people are naive enough to think that a publication's content is never
subject to life's harsh realities. I'm sure even Private Eye has refused to
publish something for reasons they'd rather not go into.
In many ways, Science & Public Affairs is more pure, since it is not driven
by advertising and exists to promote awareness of issues rather than a
particular line. It says quite clearly on the front that it gets money from
the Royal Society. Anyone looking at therefore will be aware that they have
a stake. It's completely open.
But as I've tried to make clear, it's not all about money. We'd have had
grave misgivings if I'd been presented with an article that was as critical
of the RI, an organisation from whom we receive no money (indeed in some
instances we're probably competing for money) but with whom we collaborate
with through COPUS and want to maintain a good relationship. This is no more
sinister than an 'Old Boys' network.
For MPs it is considered acceptable to paid if they declare that money. The
BA declares its funding from the RS in the same way. I would have thought
the danger lies more with too much funding from a single source.
Alun Roberts
Editor, Science & Public Affairs
p.s. If anyone e-mails Andy on this again can they copy me in, I feel kinda
left out. Alternatively perhaps you could 'out them' Andy.
----------
>From: "PUB (E-mail)" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: "Psci-Com (E-mail)" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: The funder can call the tune
>Date: Fri, Mar 24, 2000, 2:11 pm
>
> Thanks Alan. Your statement says what most editors and journalists normally
> deny:
>
>> Yes, the RS funds Science & Public Affairs, and so they have a legitimate
>> right to some input into the magazine. But even if they didn't we still
> have
>> to consider our relationship with them. We work on a range of projects
> with
>> them and I've no doubt they would be sensitive about publishing anything
>> derogatory about the BA.
>
> Thank you. Now it is stated that the funder can call the tune and that the
> relationships between organisations can, partly at least, dictate the agenda
> of journals and the press. I agree we need to work for the independence of
> the BA.
>
> But let us not be fooled into thinking that this is a local dispute over
> editorship. The debate about independence and censorship is critically
> important if you believe that that David Sainsbury launched a new era in
> public understanding of science on Monday. (Not everyone does believe this.)
> If we are to engage in dialogue and confidence building, we have to do so
> from a position of integrity
>
> Andy Boddington
>
> PS1: I want to make it clear, as I did in the earlier emails that Alun
> Roberts did not himself make any threat about our public understanding
> article in SPA.
>
> PS2: Look I made the foolish mistake of trying to hide my contribution to
> the debate this morning. I have a sack full of emails debating the issue
> send to me personally not to the list. Are you scared of debating this in
> public?
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|