Sacked adviser followed government’s own advice

When James Purnell resigned earlier this year and Gordon Brown faced the threat being ousted as Prime Minister, Ladbrokes had Alan Johnson as the favourite to take over. Now Johnson seems to be faced with his own walkout saga involving a government advisory body: the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

Following the controversial sacking of ACMD Chairman Prof David Nutt, two of his colleagues on the council have resigned and the threat of more members of the Council following looms. In particular the resignation of the only pharmacist representative, Miriam Walker, poses a problem: without Walker the ACMD cannot function since the absence of a pharmacist representative contravenes its statutory requirements. Unfortunately for Johnson the fact that the ACMD is currently in limbo leaves the government powerless to amend or develop drugs policy.

In July Prof Nutt gave a lecture at Kings College London in which he discussed the relative harm of both illegal and legal drugs. He expressed his view that government classification of drugs should be proportional to their relative harm on the grounds that doing otherwise would be misleading to the public and make it harder to avoid injustices. Home Secretary Alan Johnson deemed the comments to be inappropriate given Nutt’s role as Chairman of the ACMD, after all according to Nutt’s findings several drugs were incorrectly classified. Johnson told Sky News “You cannot have a chief government adviser at the same time stepping into the political field and campaigning against government decisions. You can do one or the other: you can’t do both.”

Several of Johnson’s statements seem to make it pretty clear that Prof Nutt’s conduct was inappropriate for someone in his position. Yet if we look at the government’s own “Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees” it seems far from clear that Prof Nutt did actually break any rules. The Code states: “Rules of conduct need not affect a member’s freedom to represent his or her field of expertise in a personal capacity.” The rule is perhaps unsurprising given the nature of the work that scientific advisers do. As Chairman of the ACMD Prof Nutt was unpaid and, naturally, held many academic positions requiring him to discuss his and review the work that he does.

In terms of his conduct, then, it seems that the key issue for the government becomes that of whether or not Nutt was speaking in a “personal” capacity. The Director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, Richard Garside, shed some light on this issue in a letter he wrote to the Home Secretary. “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.”

An important part of being a scientist is having the right to discuss findings in public. It seems that controversy only creeps in when scientific advisers make public their views on how their science should shape policy. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of that particular debate it seems that Nutt has acted in accordance with the government’s own advice. As a consequence he deserves to stay. If Johnson has an objection to this then he must surely seek to clarify the government’s Code of Practice or, better still, follow Nutt’s own advice in creating an independent organisation to replace the Council.

2 comments

  1. Heres a bit more detail on Cannabis related deaths The National Statistics 2007 report has listed the number of drug related deaths recorded in coroners reports for England and Wales in 2005.

    Tobacco 86,500
    Alcohol 6,627
    Heroin 842
    PARACETAMOL 446
    All anti-depressants 401
    Methadone 223
    Cocaine (including crack) 176
    Amphetamine 103
    MDMA/Ecstasy 58
    ASPIRIN 14

    And, wait for it….

    Cannabis 0
    (but, it was recorded that in 19 of the deaths that were related to alcohol or heroin the person had taken cannabis too.)
    Obviously, when reclassifying cannabis as a B class controlled substance, next January, the Home Secretary needs to consider classifying paracetamol and aspirin as well
    So it looks while Prof Nutt is totally vindicated….(I.E.above statistics) Alan Johnson has shot himself in the foot !. Ouch! Hop! ouch! hop! ouch! hop……NUMPTY

    Reply Report

  2. Yup! good old OFFICE FOR NATIONAL STATISTICS (UK)….actually its a pretty interesting site.

    Reply Report

Leave a comment



Please note our disclaimer relating to comments submitted. Please do not post pretending to be another person. Nouse is not responsible for user-submitted content.