Its becoming much harder for UK academics to discuss issues such as conflict and

terrorism. Last December, threats by the far right caused Birkbeck College to cancel a
conference on Islamophobia; in April Southampton cancelled a conference on
Zionismafter alleged heavy pressure from pro-Israel groups. Our
conference, Understanding Conflict, which we held at the Institute for Policy
Research at the University of Bath last week went ahead in the end, but organising it
wasnt easy due to police interference. The experience raises the question: is it possible
to undertake independent research or discuss issues such as terrorism at British
universities, without the state or groups with influential agendas poking their noses in?
Staff at University of Bath have organised many academic events on terrorism and
similar issues since the events of 9/11. While it would be wrong to say that these have
never aroused interest from the forces of law and order, the current batch of concerns is
different. There have been a stream of initiatives focused either on curbing allegedly
extremist voices on campus or claiming to protect students and staff from becoming
vulnerable to radicalisation.

Hot-headed anti-terror legislation

won't work for universities
David Maughan Brown
Read more
One of our delegates, who was recently awarded his PhD at Bath, has personal
experience of the way in which universities can be pressured as a result of staff being
inadequately briefed about these issues. Rizwaan Sabir was arrested and held for a week
over possession of a document used in his masters research at the University of
Nottingham, which was widely available on the internet and in every UK book shop.
After a courageous fight to clear his name, the police made a partial apology and paid
compensation of 20,000 to Sabir for wrongful arrest. More important than the money
was the right for Sabir to correct the inaccurate intelligence files held on him by the
police, a right given to no other person in the country so far.
One of our speakers at last weeks event felt compelled to seek legal advice prior to his
talk on collusion between researchers and the security establishment, after hearing that
a lawyer for one academic might be present in the audience.
We have experienced pressures about who should speak at the event and who should be
allowed to attend, for example the police asked for the list of all delegates (which we did
not supply). We had a number of speakers from civil society and Muslim groups, often
attacked by the conservative press, government ministers and the Twittersphere. These
included Moazzam Begg from Cage, the civil rights organisation which works with

terrorism suspects, and a representative of Tell Mama, which monitors anti-Muslim

hate crime. But we also had the prominent former CIA official Marc Sageman and
counter-terrorism officials from the governments Prevent strategy (pdf). Also in
attendance were two officials from the MoD and even two from the Israeli embassy in
London, who reportedly recorded sessions and photographed presentation slides.
Government agencies in counter-terrorism are a regular presence at research meetings
on conflict and terrorism these days. Almost every Research Councils UK meeting on
conflict includes representatives from the security establishment. The Defence Science
and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), an agency sponsored by the Ministry of Defence,
set up to ensure that science and technological research contributes to the security of the
UK, makes regular appearances. Last year it hosted its inaugural meeting to engage with
academia.
Our event was no different. Two MoD officials were in attendance indicating that the
organisation post-Afghanistan is keen to engage in dialogue with researchers.
Such dialogue is not necessarily pointless, but is hampered by the fact that DSTL, and
indeed the entire security establishment in the UK, is strongly resistant to even the most
basic transparency. DSTL does not publish the names of the researchers or universities
it funds nor even the titles of the research. The Office of Security and Counter
Terrorisms research information and communication unit refuses to disclose project
titles of the research it funds even after Freedom of Information requests. There is also
covert research funded by the security establishment ongoing in UK universities.
The problem with this is that it cannot be properly tested by others since none of the
data from the research is available. In some cases the funding source is not disclosed in
peer reviewed studies, thus misleading readers.
Earlier this year in an unprecedented, but little noticed step, UK intelligence agencies
announced they were putting up 5m to fund a research hub aimed at understanding,
countering and mitigating security threats.
The case for independent critical research on terrorism has never been stronger.
Initial plans to have the spooks contract directly with the winning university were
shelved and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) will now operate the
contract. The change in plan occurred after an ESRC consultation meeting in central
London between academics and intelligence officers at which one of the authors was
present. Among the possible suggestions for embedding intelligence personnel was the
secondment of operatives into universities. One spy suggested these might be covert. It
is clear that the changed plan still allows intelligence agencies to set the priorities of the
research that only marginally insulates the academics from directly working as part of
the intelligence community, a role that compromises the basic rules of social science in
terms of transparency and independence.

And even evidence that might in principle be uncontaminated can be interfered with by
the state. The Boston tapes affair, when the Police Service of Northern Ireland gained
access to transcripts of two interviews with former IRA Volunteers, proves the lengths to
which the state can go to access data.
A result of all these limitations is that the evidence base that underlays counterterrorism practice is increasingly compromised. As terrorism trials continue to collapse,
as the credibility of government warnings is widely questioned and as the quality
ofresearch and commentary by so-called terrorism experts is ridiculed, the case for
independent critical research on terrorism has never been stronger. This is why
conferences like ours, although increasingly threatened, are ever more necessary.

David Miller is professor of sociology at the University of Bath, and Narzanin

Massoumi has a PhD in sociology from the University of Bristol