³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

Medical students interested in the bioethics "student selected component" that I lead should in the first place contact North Wales Medical School.

I conduct interdisciplinary research into specific ethical and methodological problems affecting the institutions of science, medicine and government. I'm a theorist: my primary methods are philosophic and evidence synthetic; I rarely conduct primary empirical research. My research belongs to the field of which combines history and philosophy of science with social science and political theory. 

In addition to my research, I have a large public service portfolio, including charity trusteeship, school governorship, and membership of committees within the National Health Service and Ministry of Justice. I aim to conduct research that's relevant to these roles, and often share learnings from practice with academic researchers.

Trust in Institutions 

Trust is the mainstay of my academic research and undergirds my work in other areas, including on standards in public life, evidence-based policy, research ethics, and medical ethics. My work is divided between three institutions: science, medicine, and government. Often, these intersect, such as in public health policy which requires public trust in all three. Occasionally, I write about trust in individuals—like the physician-patient relationship—or things—such as vaccine hesitancy—rather than trust in institutions which is the main focus of my scholarship.

I am one of very few theorists working on trust in institutions starting with the evidence. The trust literature is divided between philosophers theorizing about trust in terms of trustworthiness and social scientists investigating the empirical determinants of trust. My work focusses on bridging these lines of inquiry to reach (often surprising and counterintuitive) new conclusions.

Many of my submissions of to parliamentary select committee inquiries focus on public trust. The rest focus on unearthing implicit value judgements in government strategies and legislation.

Standards in Public Life

I specialize in methodological, ethical, and fiduciary standards in public life. These are the principles responsible for good governance that the public can trust.

Much of my work in this field focusses on the Nolan Principles—the seven principles of public life that all British public servants must uphold: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership. My research in this area closely intersects with my public service, and I often write articles for practitioners—parliamentarians, civil servants, charity trustees—to help them understand and improve standards within their own organizations and professions.

Of the seven principles of public life, my research especially focusses on objectivity, integrity, and openness. These double up as scientific norms and principles of evidence-based policy, connecting to my other areas of specialization. 

Evidence-Based Medicine and Policy

Scientific Methodology and Research Ethics

A lot of my research focusses on conflicts of interest—especially on the contested concept of intellectual conflicts of interest, which are especially prominent among politicians, policymakers, and social scientists, but are wholly unregulated. I'm particularly interested in how ideology can influence scientific and policy outcomes, and how value judgements get disguised as statements of empirical fact.

I sometimes do primary empirical research as a "metascientist" (a scientist of science) investigating the incidence of conflicts of interest across different fields. I also regularly collaborate with academics working in different fields—especially with my wife, who's a nutritionist.

My work on research ethics aims to be policy-relevant. I regularly communicate my findings to my colleagues on the Open University Human Research Ethics Committee and the Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee of which I'm a member. My research also informs my teaching and supervision of medical students at North Wales Medical School.

Bioethics and Medical Ethics

Kendo and Japanese Studies

Alongside my academic work, I'm a semi-professional kendoka (Japanese fencer). I practice, teach, and compete internationally, and spend several months each year in Japan where I regularly hold academic positions. I've published peer-reviewed research in field-leading academic journals and presented at international academic conferences on kendo. I'm the only foreigner to have ever held a formal university appointment to practice and research kendo.

I also have a longstanding interest in Japanese intellectual history. I've written peer-reviewed book chapters and journal articles about this, as well as articles for lay audiences in outlets like Big Think, Philosophy Now, and Kyoto Journal. My research mostly focusses on the Shotoku Constitution and Prince Shotoku's political philosophy, on which I'm currently writing two monographs.

Parliamentary Submissions

Hyde B. 2026. Modernising Elections (MEL0146). London: House of Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/165603/html/

Hyde B, Cheung CY, Taguchi S. 2026. The Use of Artificial Intelligence and EdTech in Education (AIE0085). London: House of Commons Education Committee. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/164908/html/

Hyde B. 2026. Realising Potential: Delivering the Child Poverty Strategy (CPS0031). London: House of Commons Education Committee & Work and Pensions Committee. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/163421/html/

Hyde B. 2026. Childhood Vaccinations (CVX0008). London: House of Lords Childhood Vaccinations Committee. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/165769/html/

Hyde B. 2026. National Resilience (NLR0070). London: House of Lords National Resilience Committee. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/165792/html/

Hyde B. 2026. Road Safety Strategy (RSS0067). London: House of Commons Transport Committee. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/163805/html/

Hyde B. 2026. Student Loans and Taxation of Graduates (SLTG0279). London: House of Commons Treasury Committee. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/165445/html/

Hyde B. 2026. Innovation in the NHS: Personalised Medicine and AI (PMA0011). London: House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/164354/html/

Hyde B. 2026. The Work and Performance of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (WPHS0020). London: House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/162788/html/

Hyde B. 2026. Settlement, Citizenship and Integration (SCI0303). London: House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/161159/html/

Hyde B. 2026. Egg Donation and Freezing (EDF0056). London: House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/161162/html/

Hyde B. 2025. The Seventh Carbon Budget (SCB0025). London: House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/151581/html/

Hyde B. 2025. Future of UK Aid and Development Assistance (UKA0171). London: House of Commons International Development Committee. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/152298/html/

Hyde B. 2025. Propriety, Ethics and the Wider Standards Landscape in the UK (PEW0015). London: House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/147543/html/

Hyde B. 2025. UK Research and Innovation (UKI0007). London: House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/142002/html/

Hyde B. 2025. Electronic Voting (EVO0005). London: House of Commons Procedures Committee. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/140914/html/

Hyde B. 2025. Home-Based Working (HBW0055). London: House of Lords Home-Based Working Committee. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/140912/html/

Hyde B. 2024. Boys’ Attainment and Engagement in Education (BAE0009). London: House of Commons Education Committee. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/130378/html/

2026

• E-gyhoeddi cyn argraffu
  Hyde, B. & Hyde, R. B., 24 Ebr 2026, (E-gyhoeddi cyn argraffu) Yn: Nutrition Reviews. nuag039.
  Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolyn › Llythyr › adolygiad gan gymheiriaid
• Cyhoeddwyd
  Hyde, B., 14 Ebr 2026, Yn: International Journal of Public Administration. t. 1-3 3 t.
  Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolyn › Erthygl › adolygiad gan gymheiriaid
• E-gyhoeddi cyn argraffu
  Hyde, B., 17 Maw 2026, (E-gyhoeddi cyn argraffu) Yn: Sport, Ethics and Philosophy. t. 1-16 16 t.
  Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolyn › Erthygl › adolygiad gan gymheiriaid
• Cyhoeddwyd
  Hyde, B., 18 Chwef 2026, Yn: Journal of Academic Ethics. 24, 52.
  Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolyn › Erthygl › adolygiad gan gymheiriaid
• Cyhoeddwyd
  Hyde, B., 14 Ebr 2026, Yn: International Journal of Public Administration. 3 t.
  Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolyn › Erthygl › adolygiad gan gymheiriaid

2025

• E-gyhoeddi cyn argraffu
  Hyde, B. V. E., 13 Hyd 2025, (E-gyhoeddi cyn argraffu) Yn: Metaphilosophy. 57, 1-2, t. 55-60 6 t.
  Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolyn › Erthygl › adolygiad gan gymheiriaid
• Cyhoeddwyd
  Hyde, B., 9 Gorff 2025, Yn: Theory and Science. 54, 6, t. 947-958 12 t.
  Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolyn › Erthygl › adolygiad gan gymheiriaid
• Cyhoeddwyd
  Vickers, P., Gardiner, E., Gillen, C., Hyde, B., Jeancolas, C., Finnigan, S. M., Nováková, J. N., Strandin, H., Tasdan, U., Taylor, H. & McMahon, S., 14 Ion 2025, Yn: Nature Astronomy. 9, 1, t. 16-18
  Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolyn › Erthygl › adolygiad gan gymheiriaid

Public Trust in the BBC

From May 2026 to July 2029

In May 2026, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport updated its  to include themes on national resilience, artificial intelligence, and public trust in the media environment. My research programme has adopted the following research questions:

• What aspects of governance, transparency, or institutional culture most influence public perceptions of the BBC’s independence and integrity?
• What lessons can be drawn from other large institutions (public or private) about maintaining public legitimacy over time?
• How can accountability mechanisms be improved without undermining editorial or operational independence?
• How has the digitalisation of news media impacted perceived trust in news across different demographic groups? Has it increased or decreased trust in news sources?
• What is the impact of sensationalism and clickbait on audiences’ perceived trust of the news and the wider media?
• What are the impacts of mis- and disinformation originating from online sources (e.g. social media platforms, AI-generated content, partisan websites) on public trust in media?
• Does mis- and disinformation have an impact on information-seeking behaviours among demographic groups?
• ‘What works’ to support and preserve the integrity of the media and information ecosystem?
• How effective are emerging technical and regulatory approaches (such as provenance frameworks, watermarking, or platform transparency measures) in supporting trust in online information? 
• What is the impact of AI on audience trust?

Within the next three years, I will aim to provide the Department for Culture, Media and Sport with evidence that answers these questions, helping to define the future legislative and regulatory landscape of British press standards.

From Observing to Influencing: Lessons from the International Public Policy Observatory

From April 2026 to November 2028

This project aims to capture the lessons learnt from the investigators' experience building the with £4 million from the Economic and Social Research Council from December 2020 to December 2024.

Based at the Department of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy at University College London, this project examines policy observatories that aim to bridge the gap between scientific research and government decision-making. With over 50 million academic articles published and counting, policymakers simply can't be expected to sift through the research literature themselves. Observatories fill that gap by offering trusted, accessible summaries of evidence on key topics, sitting somewhere between narrow academic journals and broad-but-often-unreliable media coverage. Despite over 150 such observatories now operating worldwide, there's been surprisingly little guidance on how to build and run them well.

Along with interviews and focus groups with observatory designers and users—including civil servants and members of the public—the project develops practical principles covering everything from stakeholder engagement and funding to data synthesis, governance, and maintaining independence from political pressure. It also makes the case that observatories can play a crucial role in countering misinformation, particularly on contested topics where public debate doesn't reflect scientific consensus.

Beyond the practical guidance, the project explores a bigger shift in how academia thinks about evidence. Rather than leaving researchers to navigate the literature individually or rely on occasional reviews, it investigates the case for synthesizing and communicating evidence as a core, institutionalized part of academic work—much like other research infrastructure already is. The vision is one where observatories become a standard feature of the research landscape, helping make science genuinely usable for the people who need it.

Japanese Philosophy of Science for Public Policy

From April 2026 to March 2028

Funded by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and based at the Center for Human Nature, Artificial Intelligence, and Neuroscience at Hokkaido University, this project asks whether ideas from Japanese philosophy—especially Zen Buddhism and Neo-Confucianism—can help fix a real problem in policymaking: the gap between what works in controlled trials and what actually works in the real world. Randomized trials are often treated as the gold standard for evidence, but policies that succeed in these tightly controlled studies frequently fail once they're rolled out in messy, real-life conditions. A growing number of researchers argue that policy needs more diverse, context-sensitive forms of evidence—reflected in initiatives like the  and the .

The project's core idea is that certain principles from Japanese thought—an emphasis on context, relationships, holistic thinking, and the connection between ethics and knowledge—could help build better frameworks for gathering and using evidence in policy. Rather than importing Japanese spiritual practices wholesale, the project extracts underlying principles and tests them against historical examples from Japan's Tokugawa and Meiji periods, when these ideas shaped real governance.

More broadly, the project aims to bring Japanese philosophy into a conversation it's largely been missing from: discussions about science, evidence, and policy. The payoff is twofold: better tools for policymakers to identify what evidence they actually need, and a richer dialogue between Japanese and Western philosophical traditions that benefits both.

Strengthening Objectivity in Public Service: Revisiting the Nolan Principles After Thirty Years

From October 2024 to September 2025

Rethinking Conflicts of Interest

From September 2023 to October 2024

Objectivity in Activist Research

From April 2022 to September 2023