Print

---

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?




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%