The sacking of Mr. Nutt

[5 Comment(s)]

By Kristina Stafford

In the past few years governments have been putting more emphasis on promoting the values of science to try and recruit new minds to explore various scientific fields and give a fresh perspective on old problems. They are hoping that an influx of scientists will result in a breakthrough, which will improve society for the better. However, it would seem that the governments who have been promoting science are the ones who are failing to recognize its value.

More and more we are seeing both government and independent agencies funding studies to acquire data and hopefully formulate solutions on many problems that face us, such as climate change, the economic crisis, illegal immigration, drug control and the never ending war on violence both here and afar. However we see, though a small percentage of the time, that the agency which funded the study then begins to work to discredit both the research and the researchers.

Professor David Nutt, the UK's chief government drug adviser, has been asked to resign following a report he published claiming that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than marijuana, LSD and ecstasy. Alan Johnson, the UK's home secretary, asked Nutt to resign as the chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs - ACMD - insisting he - Nutt - had "crossed the line" with his comments.

In a letter Johnson wrote to be published in the Guardian, a London based newspaper, he accused Nutt of "campaigning against government policy" but insisted he was not forced out because of his opinions. "Professor Nutt was not sacked for his views, which I respect but disagree with. He was asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy."

As a result, at least two of the top members of the council have resigned. Dr. Les King, former head of drug intelligence at the Forensic Science Service, was the first to resign, followed by Marion Walker, head of the substance misuse service at Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust.

In an opinion article he wrote for The New Scientist, Nutt said: "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."

Richard Garside, director of the centre for crime and justice said, "I'm shocked and dismayed that the home secretary appears to believe that political calculation trumps honest and informed scientific opinion..."

Unfortunately it seems that this is exactly what is happening. Former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in early 2008 wanted to re-classify, specifically cannabis, from a class C back to a class B narcotic. When the ACMD advised her against doing so based on research they had conducted, she overruled the ACMD report and upgraded it - cannabis - to a class B narcotic anyway.

It would seem that what these governments really want is to promote their own agendas under the banner of science, without actually using scientific studies at all. Rather than trying to use this data to correctly address the problem, what they appear to want is for the statistics to agree with or support their own agendas, and discrediting or fabricating results is not, apparently, out of the question, especially when the "people's interest" are at stake.

If we can't trust our leaders to make informed and calculated decisions based on factual information we might as well accept that nothing is ever going to change, and we will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of our past, until someone finally decides to say, "Hold on! Let's think about this for a minute."

Originally Published: Issue 824 - November 18, 2009

Share on Facebook

Back to the top