Professor Peter Mandler has explained that he believes the British Academy has yielded to government pressure about research funding and priorities. Sir Adam Roberts, President of the British Academy, has published an article in the Higher asserting that the current situation in the Humanities is not a crisis. Let Fellows of the British Academy explain why they cannot make a stand against this sort of interference and why despite individual protests the Academy seems happy to remain silent and complicit.

An even more dangerous precedent was set long ago, when governments began funding solutions to environmental problems 'discovered' by environmentalists. These problems are always, allegedly, man-made, dangerous and understood (according to ideologically selective scientists and advocates). This has led to a vast amount of biased research - research in support of untested policies; more bureaucracy to manage research and prepare policy and then regulate and fine 'polluters', as well as more economic regulation and subsidisation to encourage 'green' or 'sustainable' technologies. The foolish responses (in energy matters)to allegedly man-made, catastrophic global warming is but one example. It is already costing us dearly.Of course research should be useful, but it should not be funded to support half-baked policies, but rather to test them. If government needs knowledge, it should come to the academy or do its own research, not pay what are de facto consultants to provide the desired answers.

I would like to just add something on a final note.
I realize that I have been speaking about scientific knowledge in my previous comment. One could reply: "Ok, perhaps science can make significant advancements even when politics- or government-oriented; what about the arts and humanities?".
In this case, I would just like to remind that Plato, one of the greatest fathers of western philosophy, in his 'Republic' put the community of philosophers and men of knowledge at the highest level of the social hierarchy. That's because, in Plato's opinion, philosophers and men of knowledge must play a vital and concrete role for the resolution of the problems of society. These problems, of course, are not 'eternal' and fixed once and for all, but change through time. If I was sarcastic, I would say that these problems change with governments. I think philosophers and humanists in general should learn how to get their hands dirty with the practical issues raised by societies (or governments).

There is an acute irony in AHRC authorities being blind to the lessons of history. For example, we might note the current strength of former members of Soviet Union in biology. With our obsessive attention to track records, it is easy to see the consistent long-term effects of restricting opportunities for enquiry to those who promise to deliver pre-conceived conclusions.

The issue is not one of "academics ... pursuing 'pure knowledge'". The issue is simply that necessary conditions for the advancement of knowledge are independence from group-think, freedom to resist pressure to conform, and willingness to question received wisdom. The purpose of a university is to advance knowledge, and it must use these tools to that end. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

The redeeming feature of "The Big Society" is that the phrase means nothing, and therefore forbids nothing - unlike, say, "inheritance of acquired characters" or "geocentric universe". The time to worry will be when control freaks begin to say things one can understand.

As a scientist, I record my complete agreement and warm appreciation of James Ladyman's article. We are all in this together. We know that civilisations wax and wane. We should not be led into a new Dark Age. Certainly not without a fight.

The intellectual bankruptcy of the AHRC is depressingly all too typical of the management of higher education (and I write as someone who has benefitted from AHRC funding). The imposition of a politically motivated over-arching research framework is, of course, utterly objectionable, and smacks of the Soviet academy. In practice, the initial effect may not be as quite as malign as would seem. 'The Big Society' is such an utterly platitudinous and vacuuous concept that it should be possible to dress up virtually any research project in appropriate terms. Academics have long had to be practised at fitting research proposals around the latest fads and fashions, and couching them in the current form of management Newspeak - it is probably simply the internalisation of such habits which has led the AHRC down this particular cul-de-sac.
Nevertheless, the idea that research should be directed towards a narrowly party-political agenda is pernicious, and sets a dangerous precedent. There is also, of course the ever present risk that continued or renewed funding will be conditional on the production of the 'correct' results, on the he-who-who-pays-the-piper-calls-the-tune principle. Research that is financed according to a particular agenda is inevitably compromised.

"The question that ought to be addressed is when was it decided, and by whom, that arts and humanities academics should be working to improve community cohesion, rather than pursuing the intellectual agenda set by themselves and their peers around the world?": this point puzzles me. It seems it relies on the idea that academics are always pursuing 'pure knowledge' and that they can do so 'purely' by themselves. This is to say that academia is a sort of micro-society within a larger macro-society, loosely connected to the latter and quiet 'independent'. Are we sure this is the case? It would be too strong claiming that academics have never been influenced by politics and other social factors before. So, the only mistake made by AHRC would be making this strategy too explicit.

One could still ask, in turn: "When was it decided, and by whom, that arts and humanities academics should be pursuing the intellectual agenda set by themselves and their peers around the world instead of, just for example, working to improve community cohesion?"
It must be acknowledged that academics form a very close, almost esoteric community. Such a high intelligence community sets its own agenda following its own undiscussed rules. Probably, some interesting research projects do not get any funding whatsoever because they are of no interest for the academia. And why are they (belived to be) of no interest for the academia? Simply because (in its freedom of pursuing the 'right knowledge' - which is, at the same time, the lack of freedom for advancing alternative definitions of what the 'right knowledge' is) academia states so. Is this fair?

Surely AHRC is following a somewhat controversial policy. At the same time, academics should come to terms with the fact that they are not the 'absolute rulers' of the knowledge they produce.

I almost think it is more worrying that the AHRC seem to have come up with this by themselves, rather than having it forced on them as originally reported. My worry is that this spectacularly ill-judged strategy will force more of the 'good guys' to resign their posts on the PRC. It is worth bearing in mind that the AHRC is primarily an administrative body and that the decisions about which projects do or do not get funding are made on the basis of recommendations of the academics who choose to work with them.
Somewhat speculatively, I imagine that the response within the AHRC to the current controversy involves a lot of eye-rolling and puzzlement. For this reason, I think it is essential that academics continue to engage with the AHRC from within. While the AHRC may set the agenda, misguidedly I think in this case, academics who choose to work with them will ultimately have a great deal more influence than those who don't.

Again and again I hear this claim that academic investigation is somehow unpolluted, wholly unbiased and pure. Sorry, but it is not like this. Academics are humans and, as such, are subject to human flaws. Academic research -- at least that funded via directed programmes -- has always been opportunistic. Research councils use directed programmes to fund specific research -- research that is invariably driven by government priorities. By all means, argue against 'connected communities' as a theme, but then you should argue against all such themes