Six drugs service scientists may resign over sacking of chairman
Growing fury at 'disgraceful' decision that undermines relations between politicians and scientists
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
Leading members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) are expected to resign over the sacking of its chairman, leaving the service in disarray, one of its leading scientists has warned.
Dr Les King, a respected chemist and former head of the Drugs Intelligence Unit in the Forensic Science Service, said that anger over the "disgraceful" decision by the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, to remove Professor David Nutt could lead to a meltdown in the 40-year-old organisation.
He claimed that as many as six of its scientists will resign from the independent organisation, putting further pressure on the Government over its handling of the affair. Dr King cautioned that the Government's whole drugs programme could be at risk.
Fuelling the sense of anger in the scientific community over the sacking, Lord Drayson, the Science minister, expressed concern that he had not been informed of the decision.
Professor Nutt said last night that his own children may have tried drugs. "I'm sure my children have tried drugs. In fact, some have told me they have," he told The Mail on Sunday.
The row has wider ramifications for the relationship between politicians and scientists, many of whom are concerned at Mr Johnson's reaction to Professor Nutt's comments. Dr King said: "Academics, medics and others are going to ask themselves if they want to serve on these agencies without payment, on their own time and expense, when the advice that they produce is routinely ignored."
To the anger of scientists, Mr Johnson accused Professor Nutt of "lobbying for a change in policy".
Professor Nutt's dismissal, a first for a chairman of the ACMD, came days after he expressed dismay at the Prime Minister's insistence that cannabis remain a class B drug, and nine months after he said that there was little difference in the dangers of horse riding and taking ecstasy.
Dr King added: "What we say is objective and evidence-based. Sometimes people do not want to hear that. The Government has a statutory obligation to consult the council before it makes any changes to the classification of drugs – the Misuse of Drugs Act is clear about that. If significant figures resign, it cannot function any more, and without a change to the Act of Parliament the Government cannot make any changes." Members of the council, which meets twice a year, are due to gather again on 10 November, when discussions will be dominated by Professor Nutt's sacking. But the resignations are likely to occur sooner, said Dr King.
Following the sacking, there are now 30 members of the council, fewer than half of whom are scientists. The Home Office has refused to comment on the possibility of resignations, but Lord Drayson told followers of his Twitter account that he was "looking into" the sacking after hearing the news while in Japan. The minister, who is likely to have to deal with the anger of scientists, later posted a message saying he would be "asking why I wasn't informed".
The shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, has backed Professor Nutt's sacking. Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, said: "The sacking was utterly disgraceful and a serious mistake. It has much wider implications, not just for the ACMD but for any independent scientific advisory service trying to give a sensible assessment of evidence to policy-makers. It is absolutely essential that the Government takes impartial, scientific advice. You cannot question David Nutt's credentials; if anyone knows the difference between facts and opinions, it is him."
Rudi Fortson, a leading criminal barrister and author who specialises in drug cases, said: "If the scientists were to resign en masse a vacuum would be left and that would be a matter of some concern." In an open letter to Mr Johnson, Professor Peter Tyrer, the head of the Centre for Mental Health and editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry, said Professor Nutt's scientific credentials were "impeccable".
Richard Garside, the director of the Centre for Crime and Justice at King's College London, accused Mr Johnson of undermining scientific research. He said: "I'm shocked and dismayed that [he] appears to believe that political calculation trumps honest and informed scientific opinion."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
and nobody should be allowed to risk it. Perhaps they should let some patients speak out instead of letting these - very well paid - people pontificate. Alan Johnson is right!
It a shame someone get sack just for telling the truth.
Drugs policy should be formed by what works an what does not work, base scientific analysis.
It clear that the crack an zero tolerance approach has not work, in fact looking at the data it may of made the problem worst.
As for whether cannabis cause perminent harm, not sure, never done me harm or any of my friends, an some of them smoke it everyday. What we need is more research an more studies an not more scare stories an poorly thought policies which are more aim a appeasing the public than sorting the problem.
However Chris Grayling does Tories no favour by conspicuously lining up with Alan Johnson's flat earth society. Most voters are considering Tory because they want a change, not more tabloid claptrap. An urgent rethink is required on both sides of the House.
Indeed loftwork,the Tories are in complete agreement, they would have done exactly the same. The Liberals are rather more pragmatic, so will get my vote.
I believe Dr. Les King has done so..
In the meantime, have we seen an early sign of David Cameron's Conservatives seeking to control both conclusions and opinion from its independent advisory bodies? And will the month after the next election, will a suddenly depleted Office of National Statistics announce GDP is at 5%?
And in this specific case, of course Cannabis in all forms carries a risk. However, that risk can be quantified by measured data (incidences and severity of problems in relation to use). The point of a classification system is to put broad summaries on that measured risk. Driving a car is dangerous, walking on the pavement is dangerous, living is always fatal. We need to look at the risks of serious outcomes in relation to an activity. Classing everything as very dangerous completely defeats the point of a grading system. The risks are measurable and quantifiable and do not need personal interpretation by politicians inexperienced in the field. One can say that 3*7=21; politicians might not like this (e.g. when Gordon starts calculating the National Debt he prefers things like 8bn+22bn=2bn) but the scientific process has been proved useful on numerous occasions and forms a good basis for many things.
The economy is getting better, oh wait a minute its not.
Co2 is killing the planet (but don't mention the Medieval Warm Period or Solar flare cycles)
AlQuida is a threat, (but don't mention that Osama Bin Laden is a CIA asset)
Osama Bin Laden is responsible for 911 (but is not on the FBI's most wanted list, please see for your self)
All Drugs are bad (except the ones that are socially acceptable that we tax to death)
Perhaps some of these scientists could stand as MPs? We could do with more people with genuine scientific expertise and familiarity with making evidence-based decisions in Parliament, to counterbalance the inane decisions being taken by career politicians, ex-lawyers, and other technical illiterates currently attempting to run the country.
Just a thought.
Just give thanks he's not running the economy, just imagine what might happen then!
Oh, wait..
In fact my firm belief is nothing good in this country will happern until we all get off our bums and let our godd ole gov. know we are sick and tired of the way things are being run. Until then nothing will change. More prisons wil be built for profit. It does not seem to phase most that 12 percent of our population is African American, yet half of that pop. makes up the prison sydtem. Also that 60n percent of black males in urban areas do not graduate from highschool. So lets keep making those drug laws tougher,and lets get those child molesters out as fast as possible.
Just look at Katrina, our Gov. does not give a crap about you or any middle class family out there. I am awhite female who spends her time getting as much education as possible and certificates so that someday I make the difference we all hope for, but truely have given up on.
Then why not make policy match the scientific advice?
Better still don't ask for advice in the first place, since the politicians always know better anyway, they know everything, from the value of a bath plug, and manure.
For example the myth that cannabis causes hallucination ,er no it does not.
The myth that cannabis causes psychosis ,er no it does not.
The reason cannabis first became illegal in the united states was for an excuse for the police to enter the homes of the poor imigrant classes who preferred it to booze,which is actually a poison.
It is a classic example of if you tell a lie dogedly and long enough it will become accepted as the truth.
ps ,some people go mad as an allergic reaction to eating nuts do they not.
Ban nuts, they are evil, ban them now !
pps alchohol kills more in one week than all illegal drugs put together in a whole year ,(this is true).
The govs have taken steps to reduce the public reliance on tobacco products and their tax revenues.
Now its time to do the same with low cost alcohol. Obviously, keep the ban and strict classification on drugs.
I t is not about scientific evidence it is about freedom of choice for the individual.
In my ealier post I pointed out the danger of alchohol.
But most of these subsatnces are only dangerous when taken to excess.
I enjoy a beer or a glass of wine but by no means am I an alchoholic.
I smoke a few roll ups a day.
I have no tobacco related health problems.
It is the irresponsible miNority who are being used as an excuse for control of the responsible majority.
Beware any form of control because that is all it boils down to ,CONTROL.
I have no tobacco related health problems."
Are you sure?
Secondly, when people take ecstasy and LSD, how do they know for sure what's inside? A drug lab is not a pharmacy, drug producers tend to dilute drugs with all kinds of nasty substances such as crushed light bulbs, for example. And how do we know what the effects of these "light" drugs are going to be on the genetic health of the population"?
http://www.pbs.org/thebotanyofdesir