Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Now sacked adviser wins backing of government's science chief

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 04 November 2009
THE UK's chief science adviser has said he agrees with the views of the government's former chief drug adviser, who was sacked after saying many illegal drugs were less dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes.
Professor John Beddington, the UK's chief scientist responsible for scientific advice in government, said: "I think the scientific evidence is absolutely clear-cut. I would agree with it."

Last week, Professor David Nutt, chairman of the Advisory
Council on the Misuse of Drugs, lost his job after saying in a lecture that Ecstasy, LSD and cannabis were less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, and criticised the decision to upgrade cannabis to a Class-B drug.

But Prof Beddington said Prof Nutt was sacked because of a breakdown of trust with Home Secretary Alan Johnson.

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

"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."

He said he did not believe the sacking highlighted a problem in the way government dealt with scientific advice.

Prof Beddington's comments came as Gordon Brown publicly backed the decision to sack Prof Nutt. The Prime Minister said Prof Nutt's comments gave the impression the government was sending "mixed messages".

Mr Brown said the government could not risk sending out the message that it was acceptable for young people to experiment with cannabis, as this could lead to more people becoming addicted to hard drugs.

He told an audience of police, council workers and the public in east London yesterday: "I think Alan Johnson made the right decision because we cannot send mixed messages.

"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.

"In the interests of the public, we have to show we are tough on drug dealing and the problems that drugs are causing in our communities."

He added: "We cannot send out a message to young people that it's OK to experiment with drugs and move on to hard drugs. We have to send out a message that it's simply not acceptable.

"The issue here is we did have advice that we should not reclassify cannabis. We did not accept that."

He said Prof Nutt's "consistent disagreement" of opinion undermined the government's message on drugs.

MAKING A STAND

• PROFESSOR JOHN BEDDINGTON, CMG, FRS, UK's chief scientific adviser – backed Prof Nutt's views yesterday.

• PROFESSOR DAVID NUTT, MRCP, MRCPsych, FRCPsych, FMedSci, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs – sacked 30 October.

• DR LES KING, part-time adviser to the Department of Health, senior chemist on ACMD – resigned 1 November from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Former head of the Home Office's Drug Intelligence Unit.

• MARION WALKER, clinical director of Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust's substance misuse service, Royal Pharmaceutical Society's representative on ACMD – resigned 1 November from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

• LORD WINSTON, FMedSci, FRSA, FRCO, FRCOG, expressed "surprise and disappointment" on 1 November at Prof Nutt's sacking. He is a Labour peer, broadcaster and renowned fertility specialist.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 04 November 2009 12:22 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Drugs policy
 
1

Cynicus Unbound,

03/11/2009 23:58:18
Hats off to Macavity!

This arrogant Nutt-job must learn to know his place.

That is NOT driving government policy.

That is the responsibility of the elected government -however inadequate- and NOT to unelected, philosopher-kings like Professor Nutt however right his view and however wrong the government's may be
2

Jimmy Fae the West,

In the Land O' Green Ginger. (HULL) 04/11/2009 00:09:53
I think we now know why Labour's Government advisors found legitimacy in the Irakistan war?

3

Jimmy Fae the West,

In the Land O' Green Ginger. (HULL) 04/11/2009 00:35:52
We have known for a considerable time that Westminster has a very sick form of government with fiddled elections, secret meetings, illegal wars, corruption, fraud, bribes and Blackmail as an everyday occurrence. It is sad that all our media are unable to form the questions that are needed to expose Labour's wrongdoing for fear of losing government patronage!
4

the_figures_are _fudged,

Galashiels 04/11/2009 00:39:24
Anyone remember Dr David Kelly ?

The weapons expert who questioned the dodgy dossier and its 45 minute claim.
5

Jimmy Fae the West,

In the Land O' Green Ginger. (HULL) 04/11/2009 00:51:46
#4the_figures_are _fudged, Galashiels 04/11/2009 00:39:24
Anyone remember Dr David Kelly ?

The weapons expert who questioned the dodgy dossier and its 45 minute claim
___________________________________

And the BBC journalist who tried to ask the right questions? Even his employers in the State run broadcaster were forced to resign.
6

Fletty,

04/11/2009 01:25:16

Britain is a dictatorship.

Unelected leaders roam the corridors of power shouting down dissent from those that dare question policy.

The police batter those that dare take to the streets to protest.

The massive database state collates our thoughts, watches us through CCTV, recording our movements and predicts our actions to prevent dissent.

We can only hope that maybe Iraq invades us insisting on regime change and ridding us of our weapons of mass destruction.
7

Allan(handofgod137),

04/11/2009 02:33:42
#3 For once I agree with you.
8

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 04/11/2009 07:00:18
HORRICKS have a nice day...........
9

Jings MacCrivvens,

04/11/2009 07:20:08
#4
I do!

My advice to ALL of these advisors is NOT to go for any walks in the country on their own.
10

sam the god,

04/11/2009 08:11:55
typical of westminster pay an expert a lot of money and then totally ignore his advice
11

paulr,

edinburgh 04/11/2009 08:19:08
In other words, Brown wants expert 'yes men' to provide advice which supports his personal agenda.
12

SwissToni,

A Neutral Location 04/11/2009 08:38:04
“Mr Brown said the government could not risk sending out the message that it was acceptable for young people to experiment with cannabis, as this could lead to more people becoming addicted to hard drugs”

WTF!! – alcohol is by far and away the main “gateway” drug in the UK yet the man with the moral compass continues to ignore the scientific evidence available to him. Having chosen to ignore the currently accepted wisdom re’ classification of dangerous drugs, I believe this (and previous) Home Secretaries are guilty of putting party political interests ahead of public health. Meanwhile, the social and financial carnage caused by alcohol abuse keeps rolling along. Any ideas out there about how we (the tax payers) can get these bottom feeders into a court of law and make them answerable for their actions?
13

danbob,

04/11/2009 09:38:10
I for one think the government right in this. There is an arrogance creeping in with the so called science community that needs to be stopped. Hitler made scientists into mini Gods and gave them free reign. We all know some of the horrors that developed because of that. Particularly the experiments on the jews.

Now I am not saying this case is like that. However in recent years there has been a kind of brainwashing going on where people out there hang on to every word these people say, Scientists cannot be wrong seems to be the thinking. Yet many of their methods of coming to their conclusions are dodgy to say the least. When anyone dares to question them they are turned on in the most vicious way. Take a look at the Dr Andrew Wakefield case with the MMR issue. When he questioned them his reputation was destroyed.

The very same is happening over climate change. Dont dare question it or you will be placed in the loony camp.

Then there is genetic crops. The same again. When prince Charles questioned that he was turned on. No debate, just a we are right attitude.

Dont get me started on the genetic freak show that goes under the name of stem cell research. Some good has come from this area make no mistake. But there are Dr Frankinsteins lurking make no mistake.

All areas where you are frowned upon for questioning the new Gods. Well I for one question them. They are a dangerous breed and the government is right to stamp on them.
14

Jimmy Fae the West,

In the Land O' Green Ginger. (HULL) 04/11/2009 10:19:19
#13danbob,

Good for you showing dissent and you make some powerful argument!

Where I think your points may fail is in the UK government's suppression of scientific facts for it's own benefit. Any government advisor speaking out even long after resigning or being sacked stands to be arrested under the very strict UK official secrets act which they all sign up to.

today we also have a Labour MP ex-advisor rebelling against the government's treachery of the UK. He is calling for the Army to be immediately returned from Afghanistan's democratic mockery and the cash used to make Britain a better and safer place. If only we had had more of these brave people when Labour and conservative were leading the country to commit evil atrocities in Irakistan?
15

Imaginary Fiend,

04/11/2009 10:23:34
#13
So it's OK to vilify an expert researcher and advisor, just because you don't like the results, the results are open, backed by evidence accepted by the scientific community. Scientists produce data through observation, experiment and then interpret the results statistically. These results are then passed to whomever, government, media etc., whether they like what they get is not the concern of the scientist, if they wish to prove him wrong then do it scientifically, not politically. Scientists will always push boundaries in their research. It is up to society to decide whether the research is in the interest of everybody or not.

I mean, I suppose you would never dream of taking a tablet containing a bacteria, would never accept an organ transplant or blood transfusion, wouldn't use petrol propelled transport, or use the internet.

Re: "Take a look at the Dr Andrew Wakefield case with the MMR issue. When he questioned them his reputation was destroyed."
He lied for his paymasters (lawyers)and was found to have conducted his research in such a way that the only result he could find was the one he wanted to find. Science thought the approach was flawed, and could not be varified by other studies worldwide.

PROFESSOR DAVID NUTT was asked to look at the effects of drugs and found an answer the HMG didn't like, it doesn't mean he is wrong, it's just that it doesn't fit into current social and governmental expectations or policies.
No need to sack the man over it.
16

danbob,

04/11/2009 10:46:20
15# Dr Andrew Wakefields conclusions were reached in a no different a way than what many scientific conclusion are reached today. I could write an essay on dodgy science and have done in the past. Your missing the point. David Nutt expressed his opinion not based on fact. Cannabis may not kill many people but it causes mental problems and to deny this is lying. We know alchohol is the cause of more deaths. so are motor cars, but that does not mean the government should bow down to Jeremy Clarkson. This man admitted that his own children took drugs. Yet he has the audocity to stay in his position as an advisor and collect a fat fee.
17

danbob,

04/11/2009 10:49:06
14# Jimmy I am not pro government I am anti daft science. Good science I support. Science based on dodgy theory are self interest I detest.
18

SwissToni,

A Neutral Location 04/11/2009 10:59:01
danbob @ various

I think you are confusing your opinion with facts

You seem to be saying that the science behind Prof Nutt's report was "based on dodgy theory" or have I got that wrong?
19

Imaginary Fiend,

04/11/2009 11:15:49
16 danbob,
No,
David Nutt, expressed his opinion based on fact, not all facts are palatable.
As for Wakefield, he did not by his own admission, follow scientific protocol, was vilified for for this, not the outcome of his research, which was proven to be biased. Also his research was shown to be erroneous in several much larger studies carried out in Europe, Scandinavia, Asia and the US.
The decision was not political, but the outcome of science policing itself.
20

danbob,

04/11/2009 11:16:53
18# Alchohol can kill those who misuse it. So can a car. This does not make alchohol in itself dangerous, just like a car It's the misuse of it. Cannabis does cause mental problems. This is fact. It was know in the seventies. The government was wrong to downgrade it. They corrected that and Nutt criticises them for this. Nutt is wrong. His thinking is distorted. Nutt listens to people who base there evidence on deaths caused. This is flawed thinking.
21

danbob,

04/11/2009 11:21:20
19# You give me the concrete evidence that Wakefield was wrong. You show me the evidence that proves without doubt that the MMR drug cannot cause autism. You cannot. All you are doing is parroting the line taken by the GMC in it's assault on Dr Andrew Wakefields reputation. A line taken incidently to protect the governments vaccination programme. Ironic isn't it.
22

Imaginary Fiend,

04/11/2009 11:26:18
Danbob,
This is a pretty balanced account and not too long.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=370
23

danbob,

04/11/2009 11:30:51
22# I will have a read but I doubt my opinion will change. Incidently have you read the story about the green tribunal ruling on the UK page. Interesting
24

Hobbe,

04/11/2009 11:44:50
Brown et al should heed the advice of their experts.

The tories, a very similar party to labour, kept on and on, not heeding advice in the 1980's about privatising the rail networks in these Isles, their dogged determination to ignore all reports studies and advice until the conclusion they wanted (i.e. a privatised rail system) was detrimental to the public at large.

Any drug can be harmful if taken in excess, but the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco are the ones that Governments tax to the hilt and basically ignore their effects because they make loads of money from their sale.

This is why the professor was fired, his advice/opinion was at odds with a government who also last year reclassified cannabis for no reason (ignoring advice again not only from experts but from the police) merely to make them look tough, no research basis or evidence basis was used or cited, the reason being that the UK government took a stance based on their lack of vision and popularity and believed that this reclassification of cannabis made them look like leaders in the fabled war on drugs.
25

SwissToni,

A Neural Location 04/11/2009 11:45:55
#20 If you are basing your “facts” on 70’s cannabis research then any discussion on that point becomes meaningless. We are nearly 40 years down the road ffs!! You need to do some serious catch-up

My point is that “good” science is telling us alcohol is a highly addictive and socially destructive drug (mental health problems included) yet the politicians continue to ignore the strong evidence which has been presented to them on more than one occasion. Sorry but I can’t don’t see that as acting in the best interests of the country and I fear we have yet to see all of the health problems that alcohol abuse can cause

BTW – I base my definition of good science on the requirement that it stands up to the scrutiny of other “good” scientists, is measurable and verifiable, is open for discussion, is open for further experimentation and is fully open to discussion and refinement. Compare that against the actions that this Government has taken on the matter. Objectivity my @ss!!
26

danbob,

04/11/2009 11:59:01
25# What a fool saying seventies research isn't valid when todays skunk is five times more potent. Perhaps your defending your own habbits maybe?
27

Tris,

04/11/2009 12:07:51
North Korea.

Scientific fact bent to fit in with goverment policy.

28

Baku,

Baku 04/11/2009 12:07:59
#1
"That is the responsibility of the elected government -however inadequate- and NOT to unelected, philosopher-kings"

explain mandelson then...
29

SwissToni,

04/11/2009 12:11:33
#26 Sorry if my ideas seem foolish to you but I would respectfully suggest you are not a “good” scientist while I am (degrees, patents, peer recognition etc.)

The only thing I have tried to defend is the value to society of good science so I really don’t understand your reference to my “habbits”

Any answer to #18?
30

Jo Public,

04/11/2009 12:45:21
#2. Jimmmy.

You are right. This government is a 'do as I say' government, not a 'do as I do'. A dictatorship in short.

31

yoric,

04/11/2009 13:03:03
So these so called experts would prefere their own children to take cannabis or ecstasy rather than have a cigarette or a pint of beer?
32

english charlie,

04/11/2009 14:31:41
You would have thought that MPs would agree with Prof Nutt, as many of them admit to using cannabis.
33

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 04/11/2009 14:54:29
Science has always had an uneasy relationship with politics.

Gallileo was excommunicated for defying the orthodoxy of the day and claiming that the earth revolved around the sun.

Now Professor Nutt is being vilified for his heresy against the orthodoxy by pointing out that many of the Drugs that are legal cause more damage than the ones that are illegal.

Eventually reason does win out over illogical prejudice.
34

Alan B,

04/11/2009 15:50:49
#danbob

Do you not think there is a problem when the government sack a scientist because they do not like his recommendations based on science?

Would the government not be better taking the advice and then be open about why it is ignoring it?

All the government have done here is give publicity to the science that says that other things are more dangerous.

The issue for Brown is Blair and labour went down the liberalisation route ie downgraded the classification and decriminalised trial in london. Brown has gone down the daily mail route. We do not know if that is for short term political reasons or just that he personally takes a strong line on this type of thing.

Drugs are emotive and to an extent the science is secondary.
35

vitesse_skye,

Antwerp Belgium 04/11/2009 18:45:37
Would it " send the wrong message to young people " if you were to advise all teenagers not to join the armed forces as you are 200 times more likely to die as when taking ecstasy if you are sent to Iraq or Afghanistan. If you are lucky enough to dodge a bullet or roadside bomb then the chances are you will return to the UK with some sort of Post Traumatic Stress disorder which strangely enough among 90% of ex war veterans that I know causes them to take cannabis at the very least and numerous who take heroin to take the memories away. Maybe on this remembrance weekend we should ask the governments advisors to ban under 25s joining the military due to the possible permanent damage to their health by being sent to Afghanistan to improve world heroin production. Hmmm thought not.
36

Observer,,

Glasgow 04/11/2009 23:13:55
32 What kind is he talking about? Regular hash is fine but some of the skunk you get now is mentalist and is storing up major league problems for the future.

I actually think the problem here is definition.
37

Observer,,

Glasgow 04/11/2009 23:17:33
26 danbob you are right (Observer faints in astonishment) it is skunk I think the Gov mean.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.