Excessive regulation of science is damaging public confidence in research by creating a misleading impression that most of it is dangerous or ethically dubious, say working scientists.

Far from reassuring ordinary people that research is safe and ethical, scientists feel that strict laws covering experiments on animals, embryos and human tissue actually have a negative impact on public perceptions of their work. A survey of more than 200 scientists found that 37 per cent think that increasing regulation does more harm than good to the field’s reputation, compared with only 15 per cent who see its influence as positive. Another 31 per cent said that it makes no difference. While most respondents accepted that some ethical scrutiny and regulation were essential, many felt that this had gone too far.

The study, conducted by the Institute of Ideas, will be discussed on Sunday at the Battle of Ideas festival, sponsored by The Times, at the Royal College of Art, London . It included anonymous responses from 204 researchers drawn from all levels in science, from the heads of major institutions to postdoctoral researchers and PhD candidates.

There was particular concern about new rules that require doctors to obtain explicit consent before patients’ tissue samples can be used in research. These often imply that scientists are planning sinister experiments, placing doubts in patients’ minds. “The approach to a patient to seek their permission to allow their routine clinical data [to be used] . . . is now so formal as to make most patients suspicious of the motives,” said one researcher.

Tough regulations on animal experiments and research using human embryos and stem cells have a similar effect, suggesting that there is something undesirable about such work.

Forty-one per cent of scientists said that they felt regulation and ethical oversight had gone too far, while only 10 per cent thought more checks were needed. Another 40 per cent said that the level was about right.

The survey also revealed considerable unease about the Government’s growing emphasis on “knowledge transfer”, or securing economic benefits from research. It found that 47 per cent felt that ministers placed too much weight on this goal.

There was widespread agreement, however, that scientists could do more to explain their research and engage the public. Some 51 per cent felt universities should do more to promote this.

Tony Gilland, of the Institute of Ideas, who organised the survey, said that while the respondents were self-selected, their views reflected a clear mood that science was overregulated.

“If we really want value for money from publicly funded scientists then we have to be willing to allow them to pursue their curiosity and see what comes of it,” he said.

“A scientist’s peers are best placed to judge whether their work is excellent or mediocre. Today the mark of a ‘good’ scientist seems to be all about whether they are prepared to doff their cap to the externally imposed constraints of ethics committees and regulators or the Government’s demands for short-term economic or social benefits from their work.”

He added: “This is not the way to achieve good science. To a large extent, scientists have themselves to blame for their failure to argue for the integrity and intrinsic value of their enterprise – there is nothing ethical acquiescing to these trends.” “What are the Barriers to Science in the 21st Century?” will be debated at the Battle of Ideas on Sunday.

Tickets: www.battleofideas.org.uk

Control panel

“The link between the increased regulation of science and the increased negative public perception is somewhat ironic but perfectly natural”

“Often these checks make the public think something must be wrong; otherwise why check up so much? In my own case I have given up animal-based research due to the bureaucracy and time-wasting involved”

“The fact that it needs controlling implies it is dangerous but gives no information about what the dangers are or how more or less dangerous they are than everyday activities”

“It is now assumed that scientists are up to no good and attempts to prove that we are behaving appropriately only enhance the belief that something is being covered up”

“The net effect of this regulatory culture has increased the demonisation of science”

“We work in a risk-averse, trust-avoiding culture that is deeply inconsistent with innovation”<E8> “Forty per cent of my research grants went in administration and compliance. Ethical issues are too often an excuse for saying no”

“The dreadful overregulation of animal-based research. The Act of 1986 was perfectly sufficient without the increases in bureaucracy and oversight over recent years that have made the research expensive and sometimes impossible, and in general do not result in any increase in the welfare of the animals”

Times Recommends

• Tree stump 'shows image of Virgin Mary'
• BBC drops Strictly judge for younger model
• Trafalgar Square 'reduced to a spectacle'