Attempts by the UK government to draw a line under the row over sacked drugs advisor David Nutt came unstuck today, with researchers attacking a proposed set of principles for scientific advice.

At issue is the suggestion that science advisors and the government should “work together to reach a shared position” and “neither should act to undermine mutual trust”.

After Nutt was forced from his position as head of the government’s independent drugs advisory group last year there was widespread outrage. A number of leading British scientists produced their own Principles for the Treatment of Independent Scientific Advice.

In an apparent attempt to quell the growing anger, science minister Lord Drayson announced a consultation on the government’s own new set of principles in December. However, after the consultation closed this week the critics began sniping.

A major gripe is the government’s proposal that:

The Government and its scientific advisers should work together to reach a shared position, and neither should act to undermine mutual trust.

There are concerns this statement could allow ministers to sack advisors who hold views they don’t like and the idea of a “shared position” could compromise the independence of advice.

A joint statement from pressure groups the Campaign for Science & Engineering and Sense About Science warned that the government principles “added greater uncertainty to the relationship between ministers and advisers”.

Writing in New Scientist, Nick Dusic of CaSE and Tracey Brown of SAS say “These statements need to be removed, and the protection of independent scientific advisers’ academic freedom needs to be included in the final version.”

Both the Times and the Guardian also report that many researchers have put their names to consultation responses attacking the government principles. The Times has “40 leading researchers” signed up against them while the Guardian has “more than 80 leading scientists” rejecting them.