Lost in transit

EXPERT advice is crucial in shaping and improving policy. The government spends about £2.5 billion ($3.6 billion) each year commissioning expert advice, internally and from outside academics. Yet a new report has found that only four out of 24 government departments (plus the Environment Agency and Public Health England) were able to provide a full list of the studies they had funded.

The inquiry by Sense about Science, a charitable trust, was led by Sir Stephen Sedley, a former judge, who sent Freedom of Information requests to ministries and interviewed government officials and politicians. It found that millions of pounds of “ghost research” is simply being lost because it is not published, and no records of its commissioning are kept.

The report finds plenty of examples where publication of evidence is delayed for political reasons. In one case, a 200-page report on mental health, which found links between the recession and depression, was delayed because its publication coincided with a politician’s speech on the economy. Another report for the government, which showed that a 45p minimum price for alcohol would cut significantly the number of deaths and crimes caused by drinking, was not published until the day of the policy announcement (when the Home Office rejected the idea).

But the main gripe is the sheer disorganisation of it all. The report’s afterword states that “Sir Stephen looked for suppression and found chaos”. It recommends that research should be published before policy announcements to allow for open debate, unless doing so would endanger the public in some way. A register of all externally-commissioned studies should be set up, and contracts with researchers should include a clause to publish work promptly. Any delays should be explained.

Though the findings suggest a cavalier attitude to evidence in Whitehall, just last year the World Wide Web foundation ranked Britain’s government as the most transparent in the world, ahead of America and France, suggesting other countries may be equally adept at “forgetting” inconvenient facts. Mounting piles of ghost research are likely to feed the public’s cynicism and low regard for politicians. They may also mean poorer government policies.