Some more of those inconvenient truths

Nuala Moran, Senior Editor

Now the bearer of another inconvenient truth has been fired by his political master, calling the whole basis of independent scientific advice and so-called evidence based policy into question.

David Nutt, neuropharmacologist and advisor to the UK government on drugs policy, was given the push last week by the Home Secretary Alan Johnson. The offence was to keep pointing out that the recreational use of cannabis and ecstasy is not as harmful as drinking alcohol.

These facts cannot be disputed: Deaths ascribed to alcohol in the UK in 2007 (no doubt an under-recording) 8,724, versus deaths ascribed to cannabis 19, and ecstasy 44. And this says nothing of alcohol-fuelled crime, accidents and other misdemeanours.

Other eminent scientists, including the current government chief scientific adviser John Beddington, have backed Nutt’s claims. Indeed, the country’s scientific establishment has been defending his stance, two of Nutt’s fellow advisers resigned and more resignations are threatened.

There is more at stake here than a clash between scientific evidence and public opinion in the highly controversial area of drugs policy. And the row is all the more unseemly and ironic given a UK government missive earlier last week in which it boasted that every department of government is now equipped with its own independent scientific adviser.

Robust scientific and engineering advice was heralded as the foundation of good government, in “Science and Engineering in Government”, a policy document on the use of scientific advice, published by the UK Government Office for Science.

The document set out in one place for the first time how the UK government manages and uses science to improve policy and delivery. This was supposed to put the often rocky relationship between politicians and scientists on a formal footing. Certainly, it was intended to guarantee the independence of government scientific advice and advisers.

The row has implications beyond the UK of course. One of President Barack Obama’s first moves on coming to power this year was to put independent and objective scientific advice back at the heart of policy. Similarly, the European Commission recently acknowledged the need to appoint a chief scientific adviser to inform policy-making.

But this is all irrelevant window dressing if politicians get to cherry-pick the scientific data that suits them, ignore the rest and shoot the messenger.

Which is not to say that scientific advice has primacy over all other evidence and instincts. Britain’s Home Secretary Alan Johnson could have rejected David Nutt’s argument that the penalties for using illegal drugs should accord with evidence of the harm they cause, on policy grounds.

But he shouldn’t be able to sack an independent scientific adviser for telling him an inconvenient truth.