David Nutt's controversial lecture conformed to government guidelines

An interesting development in the row over the sacking of Professor David Nutt as the government's chief drugs adviser has emerged this afternoon. It appears that the lecture that provoked Alan Johnson to dismiss him (and the pamphlet in which it was subsequently published) conformed to the Government's own code of practice for scientific advisers.

The Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees, as revised in 2007, sets out the ground rules for members and chairs. It states that committee rules should not normally preclude advisers from speaking out about their areas of expertise, so long as they do so in their personal capacity, and do not claim to be representing their panels. The key section is paragraph 106:

“Rules of conduct need not affect a member’s freedom to represent his or her field of expertise in a personal capacity. The committee's rules however should generally oblige members to make clear when they are not speaking in their capacity as committee members."

The comments from Professor Nutt that angered Mr Johnson were made in July in the Eve Saville lecture at the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College, London, which was published as a pamphlet last week. And Richard Garside, the centre's director, has today written to the Home Secretary to point out that both the lecture and the pamphlet made it perfectly clear that Professor Nutt was speaking in his capacity as Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College, London, not as chairman of the ACMD. Garside writes:

"I have to conclude that the public confusion between Professor Nutt’s academic role and his chairmanship of the ACMD has been sowed by the Home Office, not by Professor Nutt nor by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies."

The full letter follows after the jump.

Dear Home Secretary,

I am writing to you about your decision to dismiss Professor David Nutt as chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

It was the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies that asked Professor Nutt to present his analysis at a lecture at King’s College London in July of this year. Following the lecture Professor Nutt agreed to our publishing an edited version, which we did last Thursday. A copy of this publication, along with the press release, can be accessed on our website here.

The publicity material for the lecture can be viewed on our website here.

In your letter to Professor Nutt advising him that you were dismissing him from his role, you wrote that his contribution went ‘against the requirements on general standards of public life’ required by his position as chair of the ACMD. You went on to write:

‘As chair of the ACMD you cannot avoid appearing to implicate the Council in your comments and thereby undermining its scientific independence’.

I would like to make it clear that Professor Nutt gave his lecture, and agreed to its subsequent publication, in his capacity as the Edmond J Safra Chair of Neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London. This is stated clearly in the original publicity and in the subsequent paper. Professor Nutt made some references to the ACMD in his paper as it was relevant to his argument. At no point did he make reference to his role as chair of the ACMD, nor did he give the impression that he was speaking on behalf of the ACMD.

I have to conclude that the public confusion between Professor Nutt’s academic role and his chairmanship of the ACMD has been sowed by the Home Office, not by Professor Nutt nor by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.

Academics who advise government should feel confident that they retain the freedom to act as independent researchers without the threat of political interference or undue pressure of any kind. It is in the public interest that you clarify your thinking on this matter and I look forward to receiving your response.

Yours,

Richard Garside
Director
Centre for Crime and Justice Studies

Comments

[Giles Soames]

Alan Johnson should feel ashamed of him self - his treatment of Professor Nutt has been terrible.

Drug policy should be based on science, not politics.

[John Campbell]

Alcohol - its production,its wholesale and retail sales- generates massive income for the Treasury compared with which the legitimate sale of dangerous drugs is miniscule.Reported deaths from drug usage are also miniscule when compared with deaths related to alcohol consumption- and here let us not forget drink driving deaths, child abuse and rape.Why the deafening silence on these facts ? And - as a matter of public interest - what is the Treasury's annual income from alcohol and is that cosy supermarket club required to reveal the size of sales and profits from their members' "off licences" ?

[davsta]

i continue to watch in bemused awe as reality parodies fiction, yet poorly. At least in the show "The West Wing", the person who spoke out similarly against cannabis was actually the Surgeon General (ie explicitly a member of government, and hence fairly likely to get sacked), yet she didnt get sacked, as it was recognized she was airing her personal expert opinion on a medical health issue.

For the record, I have no view on the cannabis issue. What i take exception to is a government which distorts the truth, attempts to discredit an expert, and bullies unpaid, independent experts into not expressing personal opinions which are implicitly critical of policy. Alan Johnsons actions are tantamount to saying that any expert advisor is not allowed to express his or her opinion (whether made clear that it is not representative of the advisory body they represent or not) at all! Will all those experts who want to advise the government and thereby voluntarily gag themselves on their subject outside of the advisory body, please stand up!

We are truly living in the Nanny State.

[Barksdale]

Looks like Alan Johnson should issue an immediate apology and reinstate Professor Nutt, as it is Johnson who has broken the rules, not Nutt.

[thisisUll]

I like Alan Johnson he's genuine and for a politician extremely honest and he's from Hull.
Nevertheless he has inherited this arrogant and belittling attitude towards us the people from New Labour (Big Brother gone mad). With that War Criminal Blair still free, the Lisbon Treaty beyond our grasp to vote on, is it any surprise they think they know all and we should like children be seen and not heard.

[M Macdonald]

Dr David Nutt surely realises that any objective 'science' is seen by all human beings through their own perceptions. The assessment of 'harm' is not an objective measure and the whole subject of drugs is, as Dr Nutt knows, highly emotive. Undertanding of different points of view is needed here.

[Peter Kjellin]

Talking from an experienced view point, unlike the majority of people who have an opinion, I agree and disagree with some of the statements David Nutt made.

Firstly, cannabis should be lagalized, without doubt. LSD & ecstacy may not have large mortality rates but shouldn't be put into the same category as cannabis.

Ecstacy can seriously damage your short term memory and LSD even more so. LSD from one dosage can give you permanent brain damage leading to visual impairments such as palinopsia.

Heroin seems to be the most problematic drug in society, legalize and regulate it. Treat users as if they have an illness, not leave them to their own devices.

In my and many other people's experience people tend not to do drugs forever, particularly the recreational class a drugs. For this reason, even if all drugs were legal alcohol and tobacco will always be the biggest killer.

[Sian Cavanagh]

I do not see how he is right. Alcohol in moderation, can be effectively assimilated and passed through the system quickly.
Mis-use of drink causes trouble, yes,
but,cannabis is not only taken with tobacco, it hangs around the body for weeks, and makes people stupid.

[A heretical Nutcase]

The 'War' on drugs has failed.

It criminalises young people who experiment, provides a path to criminality for the poor and uneducated, exports murder to the countries that lie between growers and users, creates a funding stream for organised crime. The list of evils is endless.

Either we criminalise all harmful substances - lock up landlords of pubs, used armed police to raid distilleries, jail drinks firm bosses.

Or, we recognise that our overcrowded jails are full for the wrong reason. Learn to educate before incarcerate those who try drugs. Recognise that if you wish to work in the drugs industry, then a degree should be the best route, rather than dropping out of school and toting a knife or a gun. Get the picture.

This is not about the harm to individuals, it is about the harm to all of society. The current practice has failed. It is time to think anew.

[carbine]

Yet again a NuLab minister opens his bloody great trap without knowing what he is talking about. All he has shown is that NuLab are totally out of control, totally unable to govern and should be flung out as quickly as possible before they totally destroy what is left of the UK.

[ross colgan]

Who didn't see that coming?

Prof. Nutt has always proved himself to be a purely professional member of the ACMD. His, and the ACMD's work should be treasured. We are lucky to have such expertise in our Drugs Council, it's such a shame we are always let down by political pandering to the misinformed and scared public. On this one, it's fair to say that Nutt is the victim of Unfair Dismissal - an unlawful act.

I've lost count the amount of articles theres been even in just the last few months, let alone years, decrying the prohibition against some people who use some drugs. Don't forget that many of the ministers in government have admitted use of substances, so they should be fully aware of how the 'War on Drugs' fails to make a difference, on every level. Do we ever see anything changing though? Thank god Nutt verged on the political, as we can't rely on politicans to bring up this issue of their own accord.

We need to stop criminalising normal, nice people for using drugs. By all means punish criminals who harm others or steal, but don't punish drug use alone.

Consider it while you peruse these comments with your glass of wine, happy in the knowledge that your drug of choice doesn't risk a criminal record.

[MickGJ]

The ACMD actually has its own Code of Practice, which is conveniently located on the Home Office's own website.
Perhaps Johnson should have read it:

"The advice of the ACMD will be published in writing. The advice will be objective and independent of Government."

"If a member is speaking or writing in a personal or professional capacity to the media (which they are entitled to do) and they are identified as a member of the ACMD, it should be made clear that the individual’s view is not necessarily that of the ACMD."

Johnson has destroyed his credibility as a minister and should go.

[Liam Buckley]

From what he said in Parliament today, Alan Johnson apparently thinks David Nutt's lecture at King's College happened last week rather than in July. He sacked him without even knowing basic facts like this. He obviously didn't even correspond with Nutt before forcing him to resign. I wonder if he even read the pamphlet.

[Genufleks]

This one has legs. Alan Johnson has, I think, bitten off more than he is likely to be able to swallow. The scientific community is unlikely to let this issue rest until it is resolved in favour of science by which I mean rigorous truth. There is an appetite for a fight amongst those who have for years given considered advice to government only for that advice to be ignored or misrepresented for the sake of political expediency or sacrificed on the alter of political dogma. Professor Nutt must have given heart to scientists across all disciplines by his spirited defense of his behaviour and it is encouraging to see the scientific establishment lining up behind him. The resignation of the minister would be an appropriate conclusion to this sorry chapter.

[DaveBlond]

Really.. How stupid does this government think we are? Surely most people are aware of how widespread drug use is?

From poor villages in Cornwall to exclusive members bars in the City of London, drugs are everywhere.Apart from the obvious groups of students, ravers, celebrities etc., I have known doctors, teachers, policemen, barristers, magistrates, clergy, paramedics and politicians who regularky use recreational drugs.

Millions of pounds are spent every week on illegal drugs.Hundreds more millions are also spent on pharmacutical drugs which are f*****g people up left right and centre. When will we have a clued-up government that will wake up to the reality of modern day drug use?

Legalise and tax. It could raise huge amounts and some of this money should be used it to help problem users, and still have plenty to spare on other worthwhile things.

I can't help feeling we're going backwards as a 'civilisation'..

[dave bones]

If you had told me a week ago that the government was going to be running scared of the truth about drugs, rubbed in their face by a "Professor Nut" I would have guessed you were smoking wacky tabbacy.

[Patric McG]

I am ashamed that this country has the attitude it does towards drugs.Especially when they sit on their moral high ground and reep millions of pounde each year from ciggarettes and alcohol,and here they are squeeling over a man,best placed to give his professional opinion(which i agree on) that what he says is true.I am a recovering heroin and crack user, i now work in the substance misuse field with dual diagnosis clients and i see time and time again the consequences of drug use being hidden by the policies of government as if to say there is no longer a problem in this country cos we say there isnt.They ned to wake up an smell the coffee or they will have a deepening problem on their hands that is just gonna get passed from pillar to post via each government when they change at elections.Pleeeeeeeease can someone get elected who are in touch with the real troubles of this country instead of burying their heads behind the stiff upper lip attitude of 100 years ago.Get with the programme please, for the sake of the thousands that have issues with drink and drugs........Time is running out trust me.

[orb]

Patric McG
sorry to say, but 100 years ago you could buy heroin in Harrods in a hamper set!
I do agree with the rest of your statement though.

[Antonia ML]

Thank you. Good article.
are of interest for a number of reasons, not least for a really clear example of the tendency of public commentators to assume that all expertise is relative and their assumptions about science and what makes sense are as valid as the considered opinion of an eminent expert in the field:
'Sian Cavanagh | 2 Nov 2009 20:10:39' I'm looking at you.
@M Macdonald | 2 Nov 2009 19:36:42' fine in that you're legitimately considering non-physiological impacts such as effects on schooling, lack of quality control, funding crime etc are social factors outside Nutty's scientific area of expertise, falling to other experts or considerations of policy alone (depending on your view). However, that doesn't make the medical science subjective - just interpretations of its relative importance balanced against other, non-physiological, risk areas.

[robert]

hang on there.prohibition has led these concerns.
quality control? all the legal drugs that are more dangerous have quality control. we believe that is in our best interest. backyard production still goes on despite our laws.
our policy does not protect from impurity etc.
in the rare cases of death by ecstasy there is often something else that causes death.
funding crime? if you take it out of the black market it will no longer fund crime.crime will have less funds to commit other crime.
you will no longer buy pot from criminals and have other harder drugs to choose from also.
effect on schooling?
you are right on that as would be the case with alcohol but we would have an easier time regulating access if we used licensing laws that do not allow sale to minors. currently it is the unregulated nature of these drugs that allows these things.
we regulate all the nastier ones for a good reason so why not these lesser evils? i am pretty sure nutt is aware of these things.

[Andy Taylor]

It's sad to see that yet again a government has opted to dismiss a highly respected expert and his professional opinions rather than bite the bullet and change policy. As an Englishman living abroad I find it much easier to be objective (or less subjective at least) about something like this than when I lived in the UK, as it doesn't effect me directly.
So that no-one has to jump to any conclusions - I have been taking illegal drugs for 30 years, and it hasn't interferred with me being a productive member of society - I have a job, a wife and family, in fact you could say I'm pretty much an average person. Yes I have seen a small number of my friends suffer at the hands of those drugs, but I have seen far, far more suffer from alcohol abuse and the overprescription of painkillers, sedatives, anti-psychotics etc. Gorvernment - ANY government - needs to focus it's policies and energy on reducing the real (and far greater) harm done to society by of both of these rather than criminalise those people who choose to partake of recreational substances that are, in the vast majority of cases, far less harmful to both the individual and society in general.