David Nutt's controversial lecture conformed to government guidelines

David Nutt's controversial lecture conformed to government guidelines





An
interesting development in the row over the sacking of Professor David
Nutt as the government's chief drugs adviser has emerged this
afternoon. It appears that the lecture that provoked Alan Johnson to
dismiss him (and the pamphlet in which it was subsequently published)
conformed to the Government's own code of practice for scientific
advisers.
The Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees,
as revised in 2007, sets out the ground rules for members and chairs.
It states that committee rules should not normally preclude advisers
from speaking out about their areas of expertise, so long as they do so
in their personal capacity, and do not claim to be representing their
panels. The key section is paragraph 106:
<blockquote dir="ltr">
“Rules of conduct need not affect a member’s freedom to represent
his or her field of expertise in a personal capacity. The committee's
rules however should generally oblige members to make clear when they
are not speaking in their capacity as committee members."</blockquote>

The comments from Professor Nutt that angered Mr Johnson
were made in July in the Eve Saville lecture at the Centre for Crime
and Justice Studies at King's College, London, which was published as a pamphlet last week.
And Richard Garside, the centre's director, has today written to the
Home Secretary to point out that both the lecture and the pamphlet made
it perfectly clear that Professor Nutt was speaking in his capacity as
Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College, London, not
as chairman of the ACMD. Garside writes:
<blockquote dir="ltr">

"I have to conclude that the public confusion between
Professor Nutt’s academic role and his chairmanship of the ACMD has
been sowed by the Home Office, not by Professor Nutt nor by the Centre
for Crime and Justice Studies."</blockquote>

The full letter follows after the jump.








<blockquote dir="ltr">
Dear Home Secretary,
I am writing to you about your decision to dismiss Professor David Nutt as chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
It was the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies that asked Professor
Nutt to present his analysis at a lecture at King’s College London in
July of this year. Following the lecture Professor Nutt agreed to our
publishing an edited version, which we did last Thursday. A copy of
this publication, along with the press release, can be accessed on our
website here.
The publicity material for the lecture can be viewed on our website here.
In your letter to Professor Nutt advising him that you were
dismissing him from his role, you wrote that his contribution went
‘against the requirements on general standards of public life’ required
by his position as chair of the ACMD. You went on to write:
<blockquote dir="ltr">
‘As chair of the ACMD you cannot avoid appearing to implicate the
Council in your comments and thereby undermining its scientific
independence’.</blockquote>

I would like to make it clear that Professor Nutt gave his
lecture, and agreed to its subsequent publication, in his capacity as
the Edmond J Safra Chair of Neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College
London. This is stated clearly in the original publicity and in the
subsequent paper. Professor Nutt made some references to the ACMD in
his paper as it was relevant to his argument. At no point did he make
reference to his role as chair of the ACMD, nor did he give the
impression that he was speaking on behalf of the ACMD.

I have to conclude that the public confusion between
Professor Nutt’s academic role and his chairmanship of the ACMD has
been sowed by the Home Office, not by Professor Nutt nor by the Centre
for Crime and Justice Studies.

Academics who advise government should feel confident that
they retain the freedom to act as independent researchers without the
threat of political interference or undue pressure of any kind. It is
in the public interest that you clarify your thinking on this matter
and I look forward to receiving your response.

Yours,

Richard Garside
Director
Centre for Crime and Justice Studies


http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/11/david-nutts-controversial-lecture-conformed-to-government-guidelines.html
</blockquote>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6495115/Governments-chief-scientist-backs-David-Nutt-on-cannabis.html


Professor John Beddington, the Government's chief scientist has backed
Professor David Nutt, the sacked drugs adviser, over his claims that alcohol
and cigarettes are more harmful than cannabis.












By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor


Published: 4:28PM GMT 03 Nov 2009






Prof Beddington, the country's top science adviser, said the evidence was "absolutely
clear cut" but stopped short of criticising the removal of Prof Nutt.

However, he is now urgently consulting other heads of expert committees to see
if they have experienced difficulties or political interference in their
roles.










Only in August this year, Prof Beddington warned leading academics will be
discouraged from working with government if they fear being reprimanded for
expressing their views.

It came as Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, backed the decision by his Home
Secretary, Alan Johnson, to force Prof Nutt to resign as chairman of the
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) for criticising government
policy, especially on cannabis.

The move has sparked a bitter row between the science community and
politicians amid concerns over the future use of independent scientific
advice.

Two ACMD members have already resigned and there remains the prospect a mass
resignation of the remaining 28 if they do not receive sufficient
reassurances about the future from Mr Johnson in a meeting next week.

One member said last night that the situation is on a "razor's edge".
The row over Prof Nutt followed a series of public comments including a view
that alcohol and tobacco is more harmful than cannabis, ecstasy and LSD.

He has also criticised the Government's decision to move cannabis back to
Class B, against the recommendation of the ACMD.

On whether cannabis is less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol, Prof
Beddington said: "I think the scientific evidence is absolutely clear
cut. I would agree with it."

He said the sacking was the result of a breakdown in trust between Prof Nutt
and Mr Johnson but stressed it was for scientists to offer expert advice and
politicians to make policy decisions.

"I think it's very difficult – when clearly trust had broken down
between the Home Secretary and Professor Nutt – to see how that could go on,"
he said.

"I think it's fair to say we need to make a distinction between
scientific advice and evidence – which is the role of experts and scientific
committees and the role of ministers – which is to make policy."

Mr Brown publicly backed Mr Johnson's decision to sack Prof Nutt and warned
that the latter's comments gave the impression the Government was sending "mixed
messages" about drugs.

He told an audience of police, council workers and members of the public
London: "Scientific advice is very important and we value it. You can
see that with swine flu, with climate change and with all sorts of
environmental problems.

"But advisers advise and ministers have to make decisions.

He added: "I think the issue here is we did have advice that we should
not reclassify cannabis. We did not accept that.

"We have to take a broader view in the round that was more than just the
scientific advice. It's about the effects on young people that drugs are
harmful and not acceptable."

However the move has caused splits inside Government after Lord Drayson, the
science minister, wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to reverse the
decision.

He said he was "pretty appalled" and claimed that Mr Johnson had
made "a big mistake".

David Nutt: Governments should get real on drugs











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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6470090/Three-more-drug-advisers-quit-over-sacking-of-Professor-David-Nutt.html

Three more drug advisers quit over sacking of Professor David Nutt



The trio quit the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs following a crunch
meeting with Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, who earlier this month told
Prof Nutt to step down after criticising Government policy.

They are understood to be Dr John Marsden, Dr Ian Ragan and Dr Simon Campbell
and their departure follows the resignation of two other members as the row
over the future role of the ACMD deepens.










The meeting had been called because members of the advisory body wanted
reassurances from the Home Secretary that they could continue in "good
conscience" and that their advice would be respected.

The row erupted after Prof Nutt said the dangers of alcohol and tobacco were
more serious than those posed by Ecstasy and LSD and criticised the decision
to reclassify cannabis as class B, against ACMD advice.

Prior to the news that three more had gone, Mr Johnson said he had told the
body that their views will be given "due weight" in future.

He said he stood by the decision to remove his chief drugs adviser but wanted
to improve relations but was "very sorry" to lose Marion Walker
and Dr Les King, who quit earlier this month.

Mr Johnson said: "I understand why the Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs were concerned about this.

"Their major concern – and the reason why two very good people who I'm
very sorry to lose – was because they felt Prof Nutt was being dismissed for
his views. I reassured them that was not the case."

He added: "There is a duty I think to accept that politicians make the
final decision.

"At my meeting earlier on we talked constructively about the future,
about what we can do to reassure the science community that their decisions
are important to us and they are given due weight.

"At the end of the day we have to make the decision but nevertheless we
think there are things we can do to improve the way we work with the
committee."

Mr Johnson said a joint code between Government and scientists, proposed by
the Royal Society, was being considered by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and
the Government's chief scientific adviser.

Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said: "Whilst we backed the
original decision, by now I would have expected the Home Secretary to be
able to sit down with other members of the Council and rebuild confidence
and stability in what they are doing. Quite clearly he has failed to do
that.”

In a joint statement released by the Home Office, the meeting was described as "very
constructive" but made no mention of any impending resignations.

The statement said: "The Home Secretary emphasised the value he placed on
ACMD's advice, the important contribution the ACMD had made to government
drugs policy in the past and how he expected it to continue do so in the
future.

"The ACMD summarised their concerns regarding how their advice is
received by the Home Office and over the dismissal of Professor Nutt.


"The discussions were very constructive and it was agreed that the ACMD
would continue discussions with the Home Office and Government Chief
Scientific Advisors in establishing a way to work collaboratively together
into the future with the common purpose of reducing drug related harms in
the UK.