November 2, 2009

reaction to the sacking of David Nutt

Prof David Nutt was sacked from his position as Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs after he questioned the government’s position on drug classification and its use of independent scientific evidence.

Prof Chris Higgins, Vice-Chancellor and Warden of Durham University and Chair of SEAC (Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee), said:

“It is critical that Chairs and members of independent scientific committees are not just independent of Government but are positively encouraged to provide the best possible interpretation of the available scientific data, whether or not that interpretation ‘fits’ with the current political view. Scientific data and their independent interpretation underpin evidence-based policy making – and nobody rational could possibly want a Government based on any other type of policy making.”

Prof David Nutt, Imperial College London, Former Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, said:

“I am very disappointed. I have worked extremely hard for the ACMD over the last decade. I understand the distinction between policy and scientific evidence but this is less than in other branches of government. What I said was true, honest and in the best interest of the public to help them understand the risk of drugs to themselves and their families regardless of whether they are controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

“My work on this issue has been widely published in the scientific literature and is well known to the members of the advisory committee and the government who appointed me as chair of that committee less than a year ago.”

Prof Colin Blakemore, Professor of Neuroscience, University of Oxford and Former Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council, said:

“The Government cannot expect the experts who serve on its independent committees not to voice their concern if the advice they give is rejected even before it is published.

“I worry that the dismissal of Prof Nutt will discourage academic and clinical experts from offering their knowledge and time to help the Government in the future.”

Phil Willis MP, Chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee, said:

“As Chair of the Science and Technology Select committee I am writing immediately to the Home Secretary to ask for clarification as to why the distinguished scientist Prof David Nutt has been relieved of duties as Chair of Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) at a time when independent scientific advice to government is essential. It is disturbing if an independent scientist should be removed for reporting sound scientific advice.”

Evan Harris MP, Member of the Science and Technology Select Committee, said:

“The political sacking of a distinguished scientist, who is the chair of an independent scientific advisory committee, for the ‘crime’ of having different views than the Secretary of State, is an enormous blow to the credibility of the Government’s approach to scientific evidence.

“The Government has only just given a clear commitment to the Science and Technology Select committee that it would respect the independence of its scientific advisors. This news will make it much less likely that the government will in the future receive the best advice – unfettered by the fear of retribution of politicians who don’t like what they hear.

“All the gains we thought we had made from the BSE enquiry have been thrown away by this act of political spite and Neanderthal wrong-headedness. This is the behaviour of a Minister whose judgement is impaired by the need to feed the tabloid addiction to a hard-line drugs policy.”

A Government Office for Science spokesperson, said:

“It is vitally important that scientists are able to give objective and independent advice to ministers. We will continue to work closely with the Home Office and all other departments and agencies to ensure that this is the case.

“An overview of the use of science and engineering by Government was published this week by the Government Office for Science.”

Sir Mark Walport, Director of the Wellcome Trust, said:

“The job of scientific advisors is to analyse evidence, identify research needs and to advise politicians. Ultimately it is up to politicians whether they accept scientific advice. For the system to work well there needs to be confidence and trust on both sides. The strength of democracy is that, in the vast majority of cases, scientific advice should be given and received in a transparent manner.”

Prof Vincent Walsh, Professor of Human Brain Research, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Dept of Psychology, University College London, said:

“I think David Nutt has done a great job in making his case. My main concern is that it is a dangerous thing when Governments interfere with scientific independence. Stalin did it at great cost to Soviet science and the people. Whenever politics muscles in on science everyone loses. What the Government is doing is no better, indeed in principle it is the same as when the tobacco companies distorted data to deny the link between cancer and smoking (as they did for years).”

Dr Michael Donmall, Reader in Addictions Research, University of Manchester and Head of the National Drug Evidence Centre, Former member of the government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and its sub-committees (1992 – 2006), said:

“Clearly the government has a difficult job in dealing with issues of drug use in society, whether of illicit substances or of alcohol or tobacco. It is a multifaceted problem which spans areas of social policy, criminal behaviour, health, education and which affects families and communities with social, physical and mental health consequences.

“The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is constituted to give advice to ministers and while, ultimately, policy decisions are taken by ministers, if they choose to ignore or move counter to the considered advice of a multidisciplinary group of experts in their field, these decisions need very serious justification.

“The ACMD has given hugely valuable advice over many years, publishing key documents on for example, HIV, prisons, treatment, volatile substances and the hidden harm to children of drug users. Such contributions are considered to be in the forefront of policy development in this difficult area.

“It is very important that the advice given by such experts is put in the public domain. It seems completely unjustified to sack David Nutt for doing just this. We should be grateful to him and to his committee for bringing this to public attention.

“No independent advisory council should be expected to rubber stamp government policy decisions. This totally undermines the whole value and role of the advice.

“Advisory groups rely on partnership and engagement to be effective. They should stimulate informed debate with key stakeholders. In this case it appears that government has neither heeded the advice of the ACMD, nor entered into an informed debate about the issues.

“Sometimes it is necessary to be outspoken in order to bring public attention to the way it is possible for political expediency to run rough shod over expert advice.”