Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental tenets of a liberal democracy.

And yet, today, threats to freedom of speech don't so much come from authoritarian as

they do from critics within our own democracy.

The idea of no platforming, those you disagree with, or cancelling them, has taken root in all forms

of public debate, and increasingly so in science.

But as scientists know, their work is an ongoing process of finding truth, where what each

generation takes us given may well be overturned as we discover more through research in the future.

Experts should surely welcome disagreement because that diversity of thought allows hypotheses

to be tested, proven,

disproven and so on. But concerningly, the word science has been more interpreted today as the

truth itself, which creates an orthodoxy where diversity doesn't seem to be welcomed. The spectator is

deeply concerned with this illiberal trend. So today we will be looking into the question

of free speech within science, questioning where, along the way, we lost sight of what science

means, if indeed we have. Or is it the case that in an age where misinformation travels

at lightning speed via the internet, there does need to be greater restrictions on freedom

of speech in science so us to snuff out

conspiracy theories and dangerous views. I'm Cindy Yu, assistant editor at The Spectator magazine.

I'm joined today by three esteemed guests to discuss these difficult questions. Jay Patacharia

is Professor of Health Policy at Stanford University and one of the most vocal scientific voices

opposing lockdown during the pandemic.

David Willits, Baron Willits, is formerly a science minister and now sits on the board of a number of scientific bodies,

including the UK Space Agency and is a fellow at the Royal Society.

...