UK Abortion enquiry asks scientists to disclose links to faith groups.

[afleitch]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/15/sciencenews.medicineandhealth

'An influential inquiry into the future of Britain's abortion laws will begin today amid controversy over an apparent attempt by faith-based organisations to skew the balance of evidence presented to the committee of MPs.

At least eight submissions of written evidence have come from medical professionals who have not disclosed their membership of Christian groups opposed to abortion on faith grounds. Six of the doctors are members or activists with the Christian Medical Fellowship, an organisation that has given its own evidence to the inquiry.

Suspicion that contributors had not been transparent about their affiliations has led the clerk of the committee to take the unusual step of writing to all those who gave evidence asking them to disclose their links to any relevant organisations.'

--------

Excellent news Tactics by scientists who put faith based pressure groups before their professional opinion should not be tolerated in any 'closed shop' discussion; give your opinion and your findings but declare your affiliation.

[afleitch]

And the results are in...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/oct/30/health.homeaffairs

'Six UK medical experts who submitted scientific evidence to an influential inquiry by MPs into the UK's abortion laws did not reveal links to anti-abortion groups.

Their interests were revealed to the committee of MPs after individuals and organisations submitting evidence were asked to reveal membership of campaigning organisations relevant to the inquiry.

"I think it's probably fair to say that there may have been some attempt to skew the evidence," said Des Turner MP, who is a member of the parliamentary science and technology committee. "I think committee members will be able to see through what's going on."'

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Were those who belong to pro-abortion or atheist groups subjected to the same grilling?  I'm fairly neutral on the main issue here, but there seems to be a slight whiff of anti-religious bias in at least the reporting, since it implies that only religious people could possibly have a bias that needs disclosing.

[afleitch]

Were those who belong to pro-abortion or atheist groups subjected to the same grilling?  I'm fairly neutral on the main issue here, but there seems to be a slight whiff of anti-religious bias in at least the reporting, since it implies that only religious people could possibly have a bias that needs disclosing.

Short answer? Yes. Everyone was asked to disclose their links to interest groups.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Were those who belong to pro-abortion or atheist groups subjected to the same grilling?  I'm fairly neutral on the main issue here, but there seems to be a slight whiff of anti-religious bias in at least the reporting, since it implies that only religious people could possibly have a bias that needs disclosing.

Short answer? Yes. Everyone was asked to disclose their links to interest groups.

Short answer, but wrong question.

Did they check themselves for links to non-religious and/or pro-abortion groups the way they did in the case of these religious and/or anti-abortion groups, or did only anti-abortion comments draw such scrutiny in hopes of finding reasons to discount opinions that they did not bother to attempt in the case of those who hold an orthodox secular view?  The reportage certainly takes the tone that only religious nuts need to be closely checked for bias.

[afleitch]

Were those who belong to pro-abortion or atheist groups subjected to the same grilling?  I'm fairly neutral on the main issue here, but there seems to be a slight whiff of anti-religious bias in at least the reporting, since it implies that only religious people could possibly have a bias that needs disclosing.

Short answer? Yes. Everyone was asked to disclose their links to interest groups.

Short answer, but wrong question.

Did they check themselves for links to non-religious and/or pro-abortion groups the way they did in the case of these religious and/or anti-abortion groups, or did only anti-abortion comments draw such scrutiny in hopes of finding reasons to discount opinions that they did not bother to attempt in the case of those who hold an orthodox secular view?  The reportage certainly takes the tone that only religious nuts need to be closely checked for bias.

Short answer. YES! You seem to be confusing the editorial slant of the paper with the intent of the enquiry. It was a declaration of interests request which is quite common in all bodies set up like this in the UK.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Short answer. YES! You seem to be confusing the editorial slant of the paper with the intent of the enquiry. It was a declaration of interests request which is quite common in all bodies set up like this in the UK.

For obvious reasons, I'm not very familiar with what is quite common in all bodies set up like this in the UK.  The reportage you linked made it sound like the request was not normal.

[afleitch]

Short answer. YES! You seem to be confusing the editorial slant of the paper with the intent of the enquiry. It was a declaration of interests request which is quite common in all bodies set up like this in the UK.

For obvious reasons, I'm not very familiar with what is quite common in all bodies set up like this in the UK.  The reportage you linked made it sound like the request was not normal.

It's not always requested, but in contentious comissions/reports it can be requested (usually when it comes to business links) When it is applied it is universal.