Nutt sacked

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 01 Nov 2009, 18:08

Les King resigned ealier today and now Marion Walker has gone.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8336884.stm

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 01 Nov 2009, 18:22

biffvernon wrote:Les King resigned ealier today and now Marion Walker has gone.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8336884.stm

This raises the point, how much can we believe the word of the government on anything in future? How much of what they say is a load of B S which goes against scientific advice?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 07 Nov 2009, 11:27

New Scientist is not in the habit of giving it's editorial page to a guest but it has made an exception for David Nutt

Prof David Nutt wrote:If There is one thing that politicians can and should do to limit the damage caused by illegal drugs, it is to take careful note of the evidence and develop a rational drug policy. Some politicians find it easier to ignore the evidence, and pander to public prejudice instead.

I can trace the beginning of the end of my role as chairman of the UK's official advisory body on drugs to the moment I quoted a New Scientist editorial (14 February, p 5). Entitled, fittingly enough, "Drugs drive politicians out of their minds", the editorial asked the reader to imagine being seated at a table with two bowls, one containing peanuts, the other the illegal drug MDMA (ecstasy). Which is safer to give to a stranger? Why, the ecstasy of course.

I quoted these words in the Eve Saville lecture at King's College London in July. This example plus other comments I have made – such as horse riding is more harmful than ecstasy – prompted Alan Johnson, the home secretary, to say that I had crossed the line from science to policy. This, he said, is why I had to go.

But simple, accurate and understandable statements of scientific fact are precisely what the advisory council is supposed to provide. Why would any scientist take up some future offer of a government advisory post when their advice can be treated with such disdain?

As well as ignoring its own advisers, the UK is falling out of step with international trends. When Portugal softened its drugs laws in 2001, drug use remained roughly constant, but ill health and deaths from drug taking fell. Decriminalisation quietly crept up the agenda in Vienna this year at a meeting of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, where governments heard new, independent evidence on how the harms of criminalisation were outweighing the benefits. In August, President Felipe Calderón of Mexico approved a law decriminalising possession of small amounts of marijuana and other drugs. And just last month, Eric Holder, the US attorney general, instructed federal prosecutors to stop hounding medical users of marijuana in the 14 states where such use is legal.

No one doubts that heavy users of marijuana are risking trouble with their mental health. What I have simply pointed out is that we need a consistent policy, recognising that heavy users of alcohol and tobacco are more numerous and are causing themselves – and others – even more trouble through their indulgence.

Policies that ignore the realities of the world we live in are doomed to fail. This is true for just about all the biggest issues that we confront, from energy and climate to criminal justice, health and immigration. I'm not arguing that science dictate policy; considerations such as cost, practicality and morality also have a role. But scientific evidence should never be brushed aside from the political debate.

The current British government has said repeatedly that it wants its policies to be evidence-based, but actions speak louder than words. On ecstasy, for example, it made policy first, sought advice second – and cynically rejected the advice it was given. The result is shambolic policy-making which gives great cause for concern if that is how governments operate more generally.

The results of a government inventing its own reality and acting on it can be seen in the appalling consequences the George W. Bush presidency had for world peace, the environment and human rights. The message for the British government is a simple one: don't exclude rational argument in order to exploit a visceral public response. Politicians have to win the hearts and minds of their electorate. If your policy is informed by an underlying moral imperative, be open about what that is, and don't try to disguise it with a veneer of pseudo-science. We ignore scientific evidence at our peril.

David Nutt, professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, was chairman of the UK government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs until he was dismissed last week by the UK home secretary

source

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 09 Nov 2009, 20:28

And now the Times publishes a letter from Evan Harris MP.

The David Nutt affair: did Alan Johnson's statement mislead the House of Commons?
As Alan Johnson meets the remaining members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs tomorrow, he finds himself accused of misleading Parliament in his statement last week on the sacking of David Nutt as its chairman.

Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat science spokesman, has written to Mr Johnson detailing several factual errors in Mr Johnson's statement. The most important is that, contrary to the impression the Home Secretary gave, his department was informed and consulted before Professor Nutt gave the lecture at King's College, London that became the catalyst for his dismissal.

Evan Harris's letter

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 10 Nov 2009, 01:15

Frankly I don't really give a **** about this issue one way or the other. Of course it's very PC to say we should legalise cannabis but I'm not going to join in. Anyone who wants to smoke it can do so with minimal chance of prosecution, so why change things?

Is the argument that making drugs legal will bring the problem under control? Yeah, well that's really working with alcohol, isn't it?

I take the view that a little hypocrisy is the sign of a civilised society. I prefer the ethos of "Make sure you don't get caught" to "We can't stop it so let's make it legal." That basically says that society has given up on itself.

Frankly I stake more than most people seem to on the idea of self-restraint. I don't buy into the idea that life should be one hedonistic gang-bang where no one cares about anything other than their own immediate gratification. That's largely how we got our society into the mess it's in.

Given the REAL problems of the world, I can't believe what a fuss is being made of all this.

contadino · Post by **contadino** » 10 Nov 2009, 06:51

Ludwig wrote:Given the REAL problems of the world, I can't believe what a fuss is being made of all this.

It's more about the behaviour of the government on the whole, Ludwig. Would you prefer to have a government making policy decisions based on facts, statistics, and analysis, or one that bends to the will of the Daily Mail and corporate lobbyists?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 10 Nov 2009, 07:40

And it's an analogous mindset that hides Peak Oil and denies global warming. The important point is that political decisions should be based on scientific evidence not electoral expediency.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 10 Nov 2009, 20:41

Three more members of drugs advisory panel resign after sacking of David Nutt - Three members of the Government’s drugs advisory panel resigned today after Alan Johnson failed to persuade them to stay on after his sacking of David Nutt as the body’s chairman.

A source close to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) named the three advisers as Simon Campbell, Ian Ragan and John Marsden.

Two other members of the committee, Les King and Marion Walker, resigned last weekend in protest at the Home Secretary’s dismissal of Professor Nutt for questioning government policy on the classification of Ecstasy and cannabis.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 911558.ece

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 10 Nov 2009, 23:51

contadino wrote:
Ludwig wrote:Given the REAL problems of the world, I can't believe what a fuss is being made of all this.
It's more about the behaviour of the government on the whole, Ludwig. Would you prefer to have a government making policy decisions based on facts, statistics, and analysis, or one that bends to the will of the Daily Mail and corporate lobbyists?

Firstly, apologies for the rather peevish tone of my previous post - I'm afraid I was in one of my grumpy moods

In response to your second point: actually I'm not totally sure I agree with you. Or at least, it depends what you call "analysis". Sometimes it is NOT good for a government to tell the truth about everything, because the public cannot be relied on to form a judgment that is good for the nation.

The fact is that whether to reclassify or legalise cannabis is a political judgment, not a statistical one. And if Labour is held to ransom by the Daily Mail and Murdoch - which it is - there is not a lot we can do about that. That constraint feeds into any decision it makes. It is unfortunate, but we live in an imperfect world.

As for Nutt: if he is going to openly criticise the government that he is advising, then I don't think he can reasonably expect to keep his advisory job. He can't be a fool: he must know that in announcing his private opinions so publicly, he is making an enemy of the Home Secretary. What did he expect Johnson to do: suddenly change his mind and look an idiot twice over?

If Nutt disagreed strongly with Government policy, which went against his advice, he should have stepped down and made a fuss as he went. However, he wants to have his cake and eat it: to serve the Government in a very public role, yet at the same time be free to make it look ridiculous whenever he wants.

I am also not not impressed by Nutt's argument that to stop one "episode of schizophrenia" (let's face it, this is a euphemism for "a person becoming schizophrenic), it would be necessary to "stop 5,000 men aged 20 to 25 from ever using cannabis." From EVER using? Just once? I don't think so. Surely schizophrenia is associated with REGULAR cannabis use? I'm not sure I trust someone who manipulates statistics and language in such a way.

Of course I am suspicious, on the other hand, of the Government's motives for wanting to reclassify cannabis to B and to keep ecstasy as class A. Judging by recent legislation and police guidelines, the Government wants to have as many sticks to beat potential troublemakers with as possible. However, what we are discussing here is not Government policy, but whether Nutt should have been sacked. I do not think the sacking was, in itself, unreasonable - although it certainly hasn't done the Government any favours.

contadino · Post by **contadino** » 11 Nov 2009, 03:37

Ludwig wrote:
contadino wrote:It's more about the behaviour of the government on the whole, Ludwig. Would you prefer to have a government making policy decisions based on facts, statistics, and analysis, or one that bends to the will of the Daily Mail and corporate lobbyists?
...
In response to your second point: actually I'm not totally sure I agree with you. Or at least, it depends what you call "analysis". Sometimes it is NOT good for a government to tell the truth about everything, because the public cannot be relied on to form a judgment that is good for the nation.

Ludwig, it's not really a topic I'm that emotive about. I wasn't making a statement - it was a question to try and explain the reason why it's front page news in the UK.

The fact it's about narcotics classification is a shame really. It would have been more striking if it had been the head of the MRC, or the chief scientific advisor to DEFRA, or the scientists that advise the Food Standards Agency...

...and it seems that Prof. Nutt has been ignored ever since he took the job. His findings haven't really changed much in the last 3 years. It's no surprise that he became frustrated and went public.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 11 Nov 2009, 08:54

Ludwig wrote:his private opinions

Not Nutt's private opinions, but the opinions of the 28-strong panel that he chaired, as witnessed by the five resignations and clear anger amongst many others on the panel and the support Nutt has received from a wide spectrum of the scientific community. This is not a case of a lone nutty scientist having an ego-trip.

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 11 Nov 2009, 09:27

This is not a case of a lone nutty scientist having an ego-trip.

Maybe they are all on an ego trip?

Fact is, they are there to provide information no more, no less.

Our ELECTED representatives are the ones who are supposed to make the decisions.

We already have enough NIMBY and other pressure groups distorting democracy ... I really can't face seeing SCIENTISTS (swoon!) interfering with the political system every time they feel miffed or bored.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 11 Nov 2009, 11:50

Vortex wrote:Our ELECTED representatives are the ones who are supposed to make the decisions.

Oh they make plenty of decisions. The trick is to get them to make the right decisions. They'd do this more often if the took the advice of scientists instead of pandering to the Daily Mail readership.

The Nutt affair is a microcosm of an analogy for bigger things like:
scientist says get atmospheric CO2 back down to 350ppm - political response: rename Department of Energy, to Department for Energy and Climate Change and give go-ahead for burning more of the planet's carbon sink in new coal-fired power stations.

contadino · Post by **contadino** » 11 Nov 2009, 12:36

Vortex wrote:
This is not a case of a lone nutty scientist having an ego-trip.
Maybe they are all on an ego trip?

Fact is, they are there to provide information no more, no less.

Our ELECTED representatives are the ones who are supposed to make the decisions.

We already have enough NIMBY and other pressure groups distorting democracy ... I really can't face seeing SCIENTISTS (swoon!) interfering with the political system every time they feel miffed or bored.

I don't think anyone has intefered with a political system, Vortex.

The Home Office made a big song & dance 7 years ago about wanting an evidence-based policy on classification. They got the best qualified people to gather the evidence, then spent 3 years ignoring them.

To cap it all, they created the role of a Drugs Czar, who independently came to similar conclusions to the ACMD, and got sacked for it.

Maybe the mistake the HO made was to claim they wanted any input into policy decisions. Maybe they should've just come out and said that they don't care how bad such-n-such is for society, no policy changes should be made.

Just hypothetically, if F&M broke out in your area, and DEFRA decided that culling your sheep was a sound policy, without any evidence, how happy would you be about it?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 11 Nov 2009, 18:01

Thoughtful contribution from Mark Henderson in The Times:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/ ... ience.html