Government science advisors have escaped being forced to reach a “shared position” with ministers, but a provision that they should “not act to undermine mutual trust” has remained in new guidelines.

The ‘Principles of Scientific Advice to Government’ come in the wake of the huge row over the sacking of drugs advisor David Nutt (see past coverage) and widespread unease in the scientific community about the relationship between supposedly independent researchers and the government.

An early draft proved unpopular for suggesting that advisors and minister should “reach a shared position” and the government has removed this as previously announced (see: Concessions over science advice principles).

The final draft released today enshrines academic freedom and the right of advisors to publish and present their research. But it also states, “Government and its scientific advisers should not act to undermine mutual trust.”

Science minister Lord Drayson says, “These principles, which are now Government policy, clearly state the roles and responsibilities of advisors and ministers and enshrine respect for academic freedom.”

Previously, some scientists have complained that the “mutual trust” provision was vague enough to allow the dismissal of a controversial science advisor – such as Nutt – merely because a minister had grown to dislike them.

Earlier this year, at a hearing of the House of Commons science select committee, Drayson faced some hard questioning on this point and in another hearing this morning Drayson defended the provision.

“Chief scientific advisors in particular felt that having this concept of both sides recognising the importance of trust between them was an important aspect of what should be in these principles,” he said. “The thinking behind these principles is they definite the terms of engagement between the two communities.”

Drayson has also affirmed his commitment to having these principles incorporated into the ‘ministerial code’, which would give them more weight. In Parliament this morning some members of the select committee expressed surprise that this had not already happened.

UPDATE

Select committee member Evan Harris had released a statement condemning the “mutual trust” rule.

“This will be unacceptable to those in the science community who recognise the need to protect scientific advisers from the fickle whims of political prejudice,” he says. “The Science community must resist these principles and should refuse to serve under them.”