THE PRESS SATURDAY, AUGUST 14, 1976. Scientists and secrecy

Press, 14 August 1976, Page 12

THE PRESS SATURDAY, AUGUST 14, 1976. Scientists and secrecy

Under provisions in the Official Secrets Act. the Crimes Act, and the State Services Act no public sen ant is permitted to divulge information acquired in the course of his official duties. The restrictions on revealing information, and therefore on engaging in public debate about political issues, go far beyond restrictions on disclosing only information in a manner that might harm New Zealand in its political or economic relations with other countries.

A politically neutral civil service which faithfully administers the policies on which the Government of the day has decided is an asset. If all public servants were free to reveal how decisions had been reached in their departments, to make public any information which has come into their possession and to make known their individual opinions about matters with which they deal in an official capacity, the political neutrality of the civil service would be compromised. Such freedom would endanger the privacy and interests of individual citizens and trust in public servants and confidence in their discretion would run at a low ebb. In the extreme, a government might be unable to rely on its staff to administer policy. A good case can be made for allowing members of the public freer access, on their own application, to the files of Government departments (as both the United States and Sweden have recently done); but this is different from allowing individual public servants to reveal whatever information they choose to reveal. Scientists in the Government’s employ may be among exceptions to the general rule that public servants should be bound to secrecy and discouraged from taking prominent, controversial positions on matters of Government policy. The active participation of the scientists concerned in public debate on such issues as nuclear power or the use of beech forests is probably essential if public debates are not to become excessively emotional and rhetorical. Such debates should give the Government a clear guide to the policy preferred by members of the public who have taken the trouble to inform themselves about the issues. The dangers of the Government’s appearing to be eager to withhold information from the public are also very’ great. It will be crucial in the debate on nuclear power, for example, that there be not the slightest hint of

the Government’s attempting to influence the debate by suppressing information. If such hints are detected, the Government will find it very’ much harder to have the public accept the decision which it finally makes. No complicated changes in the law will be needed to free Government scientists to take part in the public debates on such issues as nuclear power. The Ministers in charge of the various departments in which the scientists work need only’ give the scientists permission to communicate to the public information acquired in the course of their duties which is applicable to the specific public issues on which the Government is undecided. This will not allow scientists to reveal how certain decisions were reached but will allow them to give the public the benefit of their own informed judgments before the Government has publicly made up its own mind.

Once the Government has made up its mind, scientists in the public service, like any other public servants, have a duty to implement the policies which the Government has decided to follow. This may create a dilemma for those scientists who feel the Government’s policy is mistaken. In extreme instances, such scientists will be able to resolve this dilemma only by resigning from the public , service. Some scientists want to go further and give protection to scientists in the public service who feel obliged to make their dissenting opinions known even after the Government has decided on a policy. Their case deserves serious consideration if only because the Government is. apart from the universities, the only’ major employer of scientists in New Zealand To expect a scientist to resign because he cannot in good conscience remain silent when he feels a policy is scientifically unsound might require him to abandon his only opportunity to work in New Zealand.

In highly technical matters the mere presentation of the conflicting opinions of experts is not always helpful to the layman. The label “ scientist ” is not a measure of the weight to be given any single opinion. But information that can be publicly tested, or exposed to the scrutiny of other experts through publication, can be important to reaching the best conclusions- It is certainly important to the confidence that will be placed in the judgment of scientists.