Cracks show in government over Nutt-gate - November 03, 2009
The fallout from the UK Home Secretary’s sacking of an independent drugs advisor continues.
Yesterday Alan Johnson appeared in parliament to defend his sacking of David Nutt, who chaired the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Johnson stressed that he does not see this as an issue about the government’s approach to scientific advice, but about the particulars of Nutt’s case.
“I asked Professor Nutt to resign as my principal drugs adviser, not because of the work of the council but because of his failure to recognise that, as chair of ACMD, his role is to advise rather than to criticise Government policy on drugs,” he told Parliament. “…There is no doubt in my mind that the advice of independent scientific advisers is essential to substantial aspects of the government’s work.”
Johnson also admitted he did not consult the government’s chief scientific adviser John Beddington before sacking Nutt. Beddington told the BBC he agreed with Nutt that cannabis was less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol but wouldn’t say whether he agreed with the sacking.
Johnson may have a bigger problem though. According to the Sun, Science Minister Lord Drayson told the Prime Minister’s office the sacking was “a big mistake” and that he was “pretty appalled”.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has thrown his weight behind Johnson though, telling the Evening Standard “We’ll get tougher on drugs.”
Bizarrely, Brown went on to say, “On climate change, or health, for example, we take the best scientific advice possible. But in an area like drugs we have to look at it in the round.”
If you can work out what that means please let us know.
Previous Nutt News
Sacked science adviser speaks out - 2 November 2009
Government sacks independent drugs advisor - 30 October 2009
UK government vs its own drugs advisor, Part II - 29 October 2009
Ecstasy advice is a bitter pill - 12 February 2009
Love drug gets politicians fighting - 09 February 2009
Image: University of Bristol
Comments
There were screw-ups on both sides, for this latest lecture and the Editorial that Nutt wrote comparing horse riding and ecstasy (yes, it is an editorial in a research journal, but still an editorial). Nutt was arguing for policy changes in the classification system independent of his scientific considerations of risk. That the lecture was supposedly consistent with government guidelines suggests that those guidelines need to be changed.
I write more about it here:
http://pascophronesis.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/on-the-sacking-of-the-drugs-adviser/
Posted by: David Bruggeman | November 4, 2009 04:51 AM
It reads like an admission that they don't consider drugs to be a health issue. Though it is not stated, everyone knows they consider it a moral issue. Nothing can improve until that changes.
Posted by: Wow | November 4, 2009 06:27 PM