There is a crisis at the moment over here in the UK. Prof Nutt the chair of the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs was recently sacked at the end of October 2009. Prof Nutt has not been received favourably in many UK Psychiatric circles because he is seen by some as instrumental in trying to down grade cannabis from a class B to C drug - and the Government over here weren't happy either. [There are three classes A, B & C. Illegal possession or supply of these substances, leads to imprisonment ranging between 2 and 14 years depending on class]
Prof Nutt was sacked from his unpaid role as chairman ACMD because [See BBC - Mark Easton - 2009-10-30] according to Alan Johnson "As chair of the ACMD you cannot avoid appearing to implicate the Council in your comments and thereby undermining its scientific independence." .
Mr Johnson stated that Prof Nutt did not comply with the Code of practice for Scientific Advisory Committees.
The BBC 2009-11-03 reported that Prof Nutt was asked to step down because ".. he had failed to distinguish between providing advice and criticising settled policy.".. and that ".. Gordon Brown strongly backed the decision, saying Prof Nutt had repeatedly undermined Labour's drug message."
Further, Alan Johnson wrote in the Guardian 2009-11-02 that "He was asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy. This principle is well understood and long established." And to Sky News 2009-11-01 Mr Johnson said "What you cannot have is a chief adviser at the same time stepping into the political field and campaigning against government decisions. You can do one or the other. You can't do both." [Prof Nutt] "..crossed the line between offering advice and then campaigning against the government on political decisions."
The Conservatives have supported the government's decision - Surprise! Surprise! - whilst the Lib Dems haven't.
Prof Nutt is a psychiatrist with specialist registrations in General Psychiatry and Psychopharmacology. He is an outspoken man who normally has a sound evidence base for his conclusions. He apparently has locked horns with the lovely Jaqui Smith. The final straw for the government came when delivered a lecture in July 2009, in his capacity as an independent academic, at the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. Amazingly or amusingly it was alleged that the Government came to a belief that his lecture was some time in October 2009. [CCJS-1]. However, there is nothing in Alan Johnson's letter that refers to any specific dates on which breaches of standards in public life - referred to as the Nolan Principles - took place. Many are finding it difficult to see where and how Prof Nutt's public and academic beliefs came into conflict with codes of practice or the 'principles'. Or were such breaches of a sufficent 'nature' or 'degree' to warrant a kicking?
Study the text of his controversial lecture in July 2009 - and read the CCJS press release in which it is reported, "To prevent one episode of schizophrenia, he argues, it would be necessary `to stop 5,000 men aged 20 to 25 from ever using' cannabis.
I do not believe that this whole matter is simply about the science and the 'numbers'. Science does not often dictate government policy - or does it? I'm not sure this is simply about a conflict of interest. It seems that on balance Prof Nutt did cross a certain line - however imperceptibly.
I wonder what the more intelligent on or orf dee Rock think - doh 'fraid to jumpeen and have yuh say.
The Onion Song
3 hours ago
6 Comments:
One can serve as advisor and still have an opinion. I have to side with Prof Nutt. There seems to be only a probable(and weak)link between canabis and psychotic illness.Would the same statement not apply to alkohol as well???
I'm sure the good old Prof. did get in the way of a few groups of people( looking out for their own interests)and that's why he had to go.
I think b4 one make a decision on this based on "public perception" it would be ideal to ecucate the public.
Then again why not roll up a few spliff's and make the rest of the ACMD and Gordon Brown somke it:-)
Well yes, one can advise and have an opinion - the lessons to be learned here I think is:
1. Ensure the expression of such opinion is within the rules governing the role the person has accepted.
2. And even if the expression is within the rules, the pattern of expression must not overstep the boundary between advisors and decision-makers.
In simpler language - know yuh place.
There is good evidence around that Prof Nutt has, by a course of action, been campaigning for change of policy. That clearly conflicts with his role as a government advisor. It undermines a government in the minds of the electorate who, may not know better, and who may simply think that decision-making at government is driven largely by scientific evidence or authority.
I have no doubt that Prof Nutt is right in 'the Science' but I'm coming close to concluding that he is wrong in 'the politics'.
Lol, yes know you place, but in this case his chairman position was unpaid ,so he could afford to speak his mind. There are times when it's better to be political incorrect, speak your mind and take some risks.I do not know Prof. Nutt, but think he might have thought of the possibilities before he started his campaign.
Whether or not he was paid he took up what is known as 'public office', so he was duty bound to obey, all codes of practice and conduct associated with that office. His unpaid status is therefore not a licence to 'run he mout'' as dey tend to do dong on Donkey Rock.
I agree that in certain circumstances it's better to be politically incorrect, speak your mind and take some risks. But those circumstances would surely depend on the codes of conduct applicable to you at the time. For example you cyah have people in high miltary ranks simply deciding to run dey mouth' on dee government - any government.
The matter needs careful and sober analysis - lest we go off sulking, groaning about the NHS in the UK, the Taliban, and Banker's bonuses etc.
As I see them, the issues are:
1. The interface between medicine/science and politics.
2. the boundary between drivers of policy change and decision-making on policy.
3. the lessons to be learned when medical science mixes with politics.
There is reasonable evidence around that suggests that Prof Nutt has, by a course of action, been agitating for policy change. That clearly conflicted with his role as a government advisor who was subject to certain codes of practice and principles relevant to his office. His actions could have been seen to undermine a government who in the minds of the electorate - not knowing any better - may simply have thought that decision-making in government is driven largely by scientific evidence or authority. It isn't.
Interestingly, Lord Levenson recently has become concerned about the CSI factor [BBC 2009-11-06] and was reported to say that scientific evidence is not the "..single silver bullet..One problem with this increased use of expert evidence is that it could be tempting to think that experts are a panacea - a fixer, a universal solution to the evidence or lack of evidence in a particular case."
Politics and law are never as 'linear' as science and scientists might expect. It cannot be as simple as in our medical world where we have the research evidence from Cochrane or whatever, and we say "Yes! That's the right treatment - let's do it!". We all know that politics is a dirty and complicated 'game'. The reason we're confined to these blogs is because we ain't cut out for those 'games'. Prof Nutt and many of us out there need to learn a few lessons from all this.
Well yes, one can advise and hold opinions, academic or otherwise, but that's not the end of it. The lessons that I have extracted from this matter are:
1. Ensure the expression of such opinions is within the rules governing the role the person has accepted.
2. Even if the expression of opinion is within the rules, the pattern of expression must not overstep the boundary between advisors and decision-makers - an important boundary between those without legitimate political power (from the electorate) and those who have been given it.
3. Experts spouting scientific evidence need to respect boundaries and demonstrate an understandng of the limits of scientific evidence.
We know our place and out limits in the Courts - you don't direct the judge how to do his judging, do you? So why should anyone expect that in dealing with the Executive arm of power, in a traditional British system of governance, it would or should be any different?
I have little or no doubt that Prof Nutt knows he is right in his interpretations of 'the science' but I'm coming close to concluding that he is wrong in 'the politics'. Just to be clear, I have no business taking a side with 'the government' - however, I am coming to my own conclusions based on the evidence and the principles at stake.
I do agee with you Captain Walker.:-)
Prof.Nutt must have read the code of practice and should have resigned his chairposition before speaking his mind:-)
Lol, yes know you place, but in this case his chairman position was unpaid ,so he could afford to speak his mind. There are times when it's better to be political incorrect, speak your mind and take some risks.I do not know Prof. Nutt, but think he might have thought of the possibilities before he started his campaign.
Post a Comment