Johnson under fire as more advisers threaten to resign
Decision to sack top drugs scientist threatens to tear apart council established in 1971
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
ANDREW WINNING/REUTERS
The Home Secretary Alan Johnson is under pressure to give assurances to theAdvisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs as to how ministers treat its advice
enlarge
The future of the Government's scientific advisory council on illegal drugs hung in the balance last night as further resignations were threatened.
After four days of increasingly acrimonious exchanges between the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, and the scientific establishment following the sacking of Professor David Nutt, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs which Professor Nutt chaired until Friday, broke its collective silence for the first time.
In a letter to Mr Johnson yesterday, the council said that while it had not been possible to contact all 28 remaining members – two resigned at the weekend – "it is clear that a majority of the council have serious concerns" about Professor Nutt's dismissal and the future of the council.
The letter said the case had "brought to the fore wider and pre-existing concerns among members about the role and treatment of the council". It added: "For some members these matters are of such seriousness as to raise the question whether they can, in good conscience, continue on the council. In this situation members wish for clarity and assurances about how the ministers view the council's advice and will view the council's advice in the future."
Mr Johnson proffered an olive branch in the shape of a promise to meet them "shortly" – possibly at their scheduled meeting next Monday – and praise for their work. In a statement to the Commons he said the advisory council, set up in 1971, had been "invaluable to the successive governments it has served". But he told MPs that he had "lost confidence in the professor's ability to be my principle adviser on drugs" because he had "acted in a way that undermined the Government rather than supporting its work".
The row erupted last week after Professor Nutt said the dangers of alcohol and tobacco were more serious than those posed by ecstasy and LSD and criticised the decision to move cannabis to Class B. It emerged yesterday that a review of the council's functions, planned before the present row erupted, is under way. But Mr Johnson said it was part of a routine Cabinet Office value-for-money review of non-departmental public bodies and not linked to Professor Nutt's departure.
Bitter criticism from scientists of the Government's role continued to flood in yesterday as the row escalated. Sir John Krebs, former head of the Food Standards Agency, said the Government operated a "pick and mix" approach to scientific advice. "When it suits the Government (for instance, on BSE in meat, badgers and bovine tuberculosis) ministers say they 'cannot make policy without the scientists – we have to go with what the scientists tell us'. If ministers reject science advice they should be completely open about why, and the advice itself should be totally public. There should be no gagging of scientific advisers.
"I cannot imagine any reputable scientist wanting to take on David Nutt's job with Alan Johnson as Secretary of State. All academics will think hard about offering their advice in such a regime. Without science advice the Government is compromised."
Opposition politicians were more muted in their criticism, refusing to attack Mr Johnson over the sacking of Professor Nutt, who is seen as a loose cannon because of his comparison of the dangers of ecstasy with riding a horse and similar remarks. The Tory leader David Cameron branded the row "very unseemly", and said there had been a "breakdown of confidence" between the Government and its advisers. But he said everyone who takes part in public life "has to think about what they are saying and the way they are saying it".
Mr Johnson was backed by Gordon Brown yesterday. But the Prime Minister came under fire from the former home secretary Charles Clarke, who said it had been wrong for the Prime Minister to say at the beginning of his premiership that he was going to change the classification of cannabis – from Class C to Class B – before the advisory committee had considered its position. "I think that was an error," said Mr Clarke.
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
Where is it ?
if they smoke the herb
they get dragged through the courts fined or jailed and there records tarnished
for doing something that is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco LEGAL DRUGS
you are supposed to serve the people not control them
shame on you
Who profits from such anti-science policies is not important. What is important is that bad drugs advice means a medical situation is addressed not with scientists and doctors, but with police, prisons and debilitating lifelong criminal records.
A widespread medical problem screams for top scientific advice -- not for cheap vote whoring. Cannabis never killed anyone. Alcohol's killed plenty and will keep on killing and shortening lives.
Just how much money from the tobacco and alcohol industry goes into the Government coffers? Untold billions, that's how much. The Government don't want to hear unpleasant, uncomfortable facts from an academic about two of their most productive milch-cows.
I'm afraid Alan Johnson could best serve the public by donning his postie uniform and doing something constructive to help with the backlog of mail. He's clearly not cut out for politics, and most certainly not for high office.
Well said relinspain, badly over promoted for sure, and just you watch how he double crosses his old mates at the Post Office...
So, no change likely there then.
What choice the voter with the two main parties so right-wing and neither interested in harm reduction at all? How stupid do you have to be to believe prohibition will help anyone?
Alcohol and Tobacco, certainly are in that category. Mr Nutt heads the research
into usage and abuse. According to his findings, he is supposed to advise the
Government. that ,I think is the definition of his job description. Mr johnson
looks like a Whiskey and Cigar man. far more concerning ,is the addiction
to shop without the means[Credit Cards]. Television oozes with mind numbing
advertisements and crappy mind altering shows. Lets face it. If all that advertising
would be cut ,the Production of Carbon Emission diminish,creating an environment
where people might be happier,without having to resort to some kind of escape.
Reality is that everyone is addicted to something. If it be Prescription Medicines,Legal
Stimulants,Adrenalin raising sports ,TV,gambling ,Illegal Drugs or simply Chocolade
the list goes on and on. So i should think that a bit more tolerance is in order.
Alan Johnson is clearly unfit for democratic office. His out bursts on TV were totally inappropriate for a Minister. Totally lacking reason and logic. His credentials apart from being a former union militant, rest in the fact in has a mind set for dictatorship Bunker politics. He has probably long since sold his union down the river for Bunker politics. I do not see him defending his former post office colleague or have I missed something? Naturally our none elect Bunker PM Brown will back Alan. Brown can not act without the approval of Mandelson.
Science means nothing to these dictators, who refuse to call an election. It is about votes and Alan Johnson thought that sacking Professor Nutt was a vote winner. Bad mistake. But shooting themselves in the foot is common in New Labour.
One thing to put straight is that Professor Nutt and his team are not paid for the advice they give. They do this work out of a desire to serve both the public good and represent the scientific communities to which they are associated.
Alan Johnson is an over paid Minister with an over generous pension coming his way. His knowledge of science is that he was a militant union member and former post office worker. Alan was groomed for New Labour because of union donations and given the safe seat of Hull West and Hessle. Groomed from day one to be a yes man and hence he is now a Brownie and loyal to Mandelson. There were complaints that Alan had no knowledge of Hull, but they fell on deaf ears. Lib Dems are second in Hull. Hopefully, can they over turn Alan’s safe seat of about 10,000 majority.
It is down to the people of Hull not to let us down. Please vote and anything but New Labour. Help the Lib Dems pull this one out of the bag.
Charles Clarke obviously supports democracy and is a balanced reasoning and educated politician. Charles defends Professor Nutt, the right of free speech that New Labour seek to deny and the objectivity of his scientific colleagues. But Charles Clarke is long despised by New Labour because of his truth and honesty. Again I would urge Charles to jump ship and join the Lib Dems. Charles can not save a sunken wreck and a person of his integrity has no place in an obvious New Labour dictatorship.