Pubdate: Sat, 20 Feb 2010
Source: Lancet, The (UK)
Volume: 375, Issue 9715, Page 612
Copyright: 2010 The Lancet Ltd
Contact:  http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/231
Referenced: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/421
Referenced: The government's revision http://mapinc.org/url/ZTUEWF2s
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Advisory+Council+on+the+Misuse+of+Drugs
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/David+Nutt

ADVISING THE UK GOVERNMENT

All too often governments make political policy choices rather than 
evidence-based ones. This approach has caused deep consternation 
among the scientific community in the UK, where a schism now exists 
between the government and its scientific advisers.

The trouble started last October after David Nutt, chair of the 
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), was sacked for 
publicly speaking out against the government's decision to ignore the 
ACMD's advice on cannabis. In November, the scientific community, 
though understandably angry at the way in which the government had 
treated a respected scientific adviser, decided to respond in a 
constructive manner. 90 senior scientists, scientific advisers, and 
Sense about Science--an independent charity promoting good science 
for the public--drafted a set of principles on the treatment of 
scientific advice and sent them to the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. 
The principles fall under three themes: academic freedom to express 
views openly without restriction, independence of operation, and 
proper consideration of advice by ministers. The code enshrined what 
scientific advice to government should be--independent of political 
interference and ideology.

How did the government respond? It redrafted the principles to suit 
its agenda. Most notably, the government dropped academic freedom as 
a principle and inserted "trust and respect". Under this heading it 
states that: "The government and its scientific advisers should work 
together to reach a shared position, and neither should act to 
undermine mutual trust." However, asking scientific advisers to 
collude with government to reach a "shared position" on policies 
would undermine the independence of scientific advice.

Essentially, these revisions represent an attempt by government to 
avoid any future public dissent from its scientific advisers.

The government must now listen to the concerns that have been raised 
over its version of the principles and revise them accordingly. Doing 
so will restore the confidence of both the scientific community and 
the public in ministerial policy making. It will also help to repair 
the damaged relationship that exists between the government and its 
scientific advisers. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake