It has been a bad week for the Government's relationship with scientists. Professor David Nutt, head of the government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, said in a lecture that the scientific evidence was that cannabis is a less harmful drug than either nicotine or alcohol. Home Secretary Alan Johnson promptly sacked him.
Five members of the Advisory Council have since resigned in protest at the sacking. One of them, Dr Simon Campbell, was quoted on the BBC website as saying that home secretaries would listen to scientific advice but had usually already made their decisions. Perhaps not coincidentally the government recently decided to reclassify cannabis as a Class B drug (with greater penalties for possession and supply) rather it's previous classification as Class C. The Science Minister (Lord Drayson) was in Japan at the time of the sacking and was not consulted by the Home Secretary but has subsequently acknowledged the disquiet felt by scientists over the matter.
An understanding of the nature and limits of science is not high on the list of qualifications needed to run the country, but probably should be. A politician needs to be able to understand - in broad terms at least - what he is being told by his advisers and also appreciate the limits of what science can say about a given problem. In this case it seemed that Alan Johnson was not able - or chose to ignore - the difference between a scientific opinion on the relative dangers of various drugs and an attack on government policy.
It is the scientific advisor's role to present the science in as clear and impartial a way as possible. It is the politician's job to make policy decisions which may be influenced by such advice although economic, social and political factors will probably be more important in most cases. Unfortunately it is often tempting for a politician to paint a layer of scientific justification over a policy arrived at for reasons of political expediency. Once the policy has been formed any scientific advice which casts doubt on the basis for that policy may be looked on by the politician as a potential political threat. In such cases it is easier to attack the scientist or the science than admit the real reasons for the policy, even if those reasons were - from a political point of view - sound.
Alan Johnson had many valid reasons to want to classify cannabis as a Class B drug, but scientific evidence was not one of them. By sacking a scientific advisor for expressing a scientific opinion the Home Secretary has caused a great deal of damage to the government's relationship with scientists, who must now be wondering what areas of scientific and academic independence will be next to come under attack. The damage done to the integrity and independence of American science under George W. Bush's presidency is a warning of what can happen if scientists feel compelled to make the 'facts' fit into a predetermined political line.
Independent scientific advice ultimately leads to better informed policy making. Even if there are good reasons to ignore the scientific advice, rubbishing it is counterproductive. The government has some bridge-building to do here.
Update: since I drafted this yesterday, Alan Johnson has agreed to write to members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to explain any decisions that go against their advice, and to refrain from pre-judging decisions on drug classification before the Advisory Council issues its advice.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8355898.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8353685.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8347828.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8337185.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm
No comments:
Post a Comment