The sacking of the drugs advisory panel chair Professor Nutt sets a dangerous precedent, says Nick Dusic. The government must respect scientists’ freedom of speech

Home secretary Alan Johnson’s decision to ask Professor David Nutt to resign as chair of the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs has not gone without notice. So far the incident has racked up over 2,000 media mentions (according to Google News) plus debates in both Houses of Parliament, an investigation by the House of Commons science and technology committee, the resignation of members of the ACMD, and a rebuke from science minister Lord Drayson. In addition, there has been a coordinated response from the scientific community, which – in a paper named Principles for the Treatment of Independent Scientific Advice – called for such advisory panels to enjoy academic freedom and independence of operation, and for their advice to be given proper consideration.

The ramifications of the sacking could be significant, as there are around 75 scientific advisory committees across government. The experts who sit on these committees are academics who give their time for free; their only motivation is to help ensure that government policy is informed by the best available scientific evidence.

The treatment of Professor Nutt has undermined scientists’ confidence that their time and expertise will be put to good use on scientific advisory committees – especially on drugs policy. The government must respond swiftly to restore confidence in the scientific advisory system by affirming a few key principles and putting some institutional checks in place: we hope that chief scientific adviser Professor John Beddington’s ongoing review of the government’s Guidelines on Scientific Analysis in Policy Making will help here.

The main principle at stake is the freedom of independent scientific advisers to tell their peers and the public when their views directly challenge government policy. Professor Nutt lost the confidence of the home secretary for engaging the public within his area of expertise. Scientists have come out strongly on this issue, because open communication is not only part of their day job; it is also critical to the integrity of scientific advice. As we have learned – think of the BSE crisis – transparency of scientific advice is a must.

In return for giving up their time, independent scientific advisers should at least be listened to. There is no question that advisers advise and ministers decide. However, the purpose of the scientific advisory system is undermined when ministers take a line on an issue before receiving advice on it. This happened to the ACMD over the drug classification of both marijuana and ecstasy; though Johnson has said he won’t prejudge future ACMD reports.

If ministers reject advice, they should explain their rationale for doing so; and the advisory council’s members should be able to discuss the evidence behind rejected recommendations. Ministers may go back and ask advisory committees to look at an issue again, but they must appreciate that only new evidence will change conclusions.

Alan Johnson has talked of changing his relationship with the ACMD, meeting with it regularly. The independence of scientific advisory committees would not be undermined by meetings with ministers and senior civil servants; indeed, periodic meetings could help to engender trust and ensure better communication.

Worryingly, Johnson’s decision to ask Professor Nutt to resign was taken unilaterally; this is extremely disturbing, as it means that scientific advisers can be summarily dismissed. In the future, this should not be allowed to happen: we need clarity on the circumstances in which an adviser could be removed from their position. An adviser should not be removed for discussing evidence that challenges government policy, which is effectively what happened to Professor Nutt. Furthermore, in order to protect the integrity of the advisory system, the government’s chief scientific adviser should be involved in the final decision.

The only positive outcome of Professor Nutt’s removal is that the profile of scientific advice in government has been dramatically raised. Every politician, civil servant and commentator has given some thought to the role of science in policymaking. Although it is understandable that this attention usually only arises when things go wrong, it is important that scientific advice is considered on an ongoing basis to help ensure that future disputes can be remedied before they cause a crisis.

In order to move on from this deplorable episode, it is important that the Principles for the Treatment of Independent Scientific Advice are affirmed by the government, and that Professor Beddington’s review corrects the system’s deficiencies. The alternative would be the weakening of scientific advice in government, which would be bad for policymaking and science alike.

Nick Dusic is the director of the Campaign for Science & Engineering

Science, advice, Policy, evidence, drugs