The politicization of science looks different in the U.K.: fewer personal attacks and more government decisions based on inscrutable criteria. At the beginning of the pandemic, the government was so secretive about its scientific advice that a independent group formed to apply pressure and inform the public.

One of the key moments in this long process came in the late 1980s, when British cattle were succumbing to bovine spongiform encephalopthy (BSE), and the government sought to reassure the public that it was safe to eat British beef. Among those watching the media’s and government’s handling of the crisis was Fiona Fox, then working in the humanitarian aid sector. As she explains in her new book, Beyond the Hype, advising scientists had issued a typically cautious statement: no evidence yet linked eating meat to infection with BSE, but it could be a risk. The government and media disseminated this as “scientists say” that eating beef is “safe.” Six years later, the link between eating beef and BSE infection had become clear (although the feared wave of such infections has, thankfully, not materialized).

Fox, who was looking for a new project, saw one in the BSE controversy and the media’s and government’s response: to create a press service that would help scientists and the media find each other. The result is the Science Media Centre (SMC), which is funded by donations. SMC’s twenty years of connecting scientists and the media form the body of Fox’s book.

“A few different initiatives came out around a similar time,” she says (one was The Skeptic, founded in 1987). “Some people are too nice and say everything’s changed because of SMC, but it was the product of changed attitudes.” This was also around the time that scientists generally became more willing to talk directly to the media and funding agencies began requiring public engagement as a condition of awarding grants.

Fox knew quickly she was onto something. The scientists she met who had been burned by the distortion of their cautious statements were “absolutely furious.” They had never spoken directly to the media. She thought the scope for a facilitator was clear.

Many of the British controversies Fox discusses in her book may be unfamiliar in detail to U.S. readers—but all have their American counterparts. The most broadly relevant: Andrew Wakefield and the MMR vaccine; research on myalgic encephalomyelitis, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome; human-animal hybrids and animal research; the climate scientists’ stolen emails; the COVID-19 pandemic; and the chapters on the relationship between scientists and science journalists and the future of science reporting that wrap up the book.

Other, less familiar, stories have U.S. analogues. David Nutt, the former chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, was fired for reporting publicly, while a government adviser, that his research showed that marijuana is less harmful than tobacco and alcohol and that taking ecstasy is less risky than horseback riding. “It wasn’t his view,” Fox says, noting the criticism he got even from fellow scientists. “He was a scientist. He went out of his way to do experiments to look at relative harms. He was sacked because of his science.”

Throughout, Fox has pushed for greater openness. Animal researchers, under threat from activists, were reluctant to publish photos of facilities and invite scrutiny, as Fox pushed them to do. “It pulled the rug from under the extremists because they only did well because they were able to say the scientific community is hiding this so it must be bad.” Showing the value of such research, which led to the development of the breast cancer treatment Herceptin, also helped.

“Public trust in science depends on the public hearing directly from the scientists,” she says.

The problem now is that increasingly the government is controlling the publication of publicly funded research. The book has afforded her the chance to make this point in interviews, including a recent Skeptics in the Pub appearance.

“We really felt this in the pandemic, because so much of the science was commissioned by government and I feel like science gets brought closer and closer to government.” In the past, independent research councils were able to use their voice. Now, however, UK Research and Innovation is a government non-departmental public body.

“It just feels like so many roads are leading science closer to government,” Fox says. “It’s not SMC’s job to fix it, but I do think it’s our job to say that communication of scientific data and evidence ought to be free from politicization.” She is “regularly shocked” to see apparently independent university scientists pushed to reschedule the press briefing outlining two years of research because the Department of Health turns out to have been involved in commissioning or funding the research and the timing conflicts with some other government communications plan.

“In so much of the pandemic it was mysterious as to where decisions were made. If you talk to the university members of the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts, because it had such a high profile, many people thought it was the only organization giving scientific advice.” In reality, others advised on vaccines, biosecurity, and modeling.

“We ought to have a transparent process of scientific advice to government,” Fox says. How advisers are chosen and what they recommend should be published—and the government be clear about how it uses that advice. The pandemic has raised public trust in scientists to record levels, especially compared to politicians. “If government could show they were being honest, they could reflect in the glory of that. It would be a good look. But they want to control the narrative.”