Scientists outraged over firing of chief UK drug policy advisor

Alan Johnson, British Labour Party (on right) in the House of Parliament. Photo: catch21productions

A major row broke out between scientists and politicians after the home secretary dismissed Professor David Nutt, chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Nutt, a frequent critic of political meddling in science, apparently went too far when he called for reclassifying some drugs as less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco.

Two members of the 30-member Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) have resigned following the Oct. 30 firing of the Council’s chairman and chief expert, Professor David Nutt. 

Nutt was fired by Home Secretary Alan Johnson after he criticized politicians for allegedly distorting the facts and devaluating the panel’s findings, most notably concerning the classification of cannabis.

In a published paper, Nutt reiterated his oft-stated view that illicit drugs should be classified according to the evidence of the harm they cause. He pointed out that alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than LSD, cannabis and ecstasy. Nutt said alcohol should come fifth on the dangerous drugs list behind cocaine, heroin, barbiturates and methadone, and tobacco should be in ninth place, ahead of cannabis, LSD and ecstasy.

Nutt made headlines in the past when he made the controversial assertion that ecstasy is no more statistically dangerous than horseback riding.

His recent public statement that smoking cannabis contributed a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness proved to be the last straw for Secretary Johnson.

“You cannot have a chief adviser at the same time stepping into the public field and campaigning against government decisions,” said Johnson in justifying his decision to release Nutt from his advisory position.

Two advisory council members resigned in protest shortly after Nutt’s dismissal. Les King, a chemistry expert, claimed that Johnson had denied Nutt the right to free speech. He also demanded that the council be made totally independent of politicians. The resignation of pharmacist Marion Walker leaves the government with a gap in its statutory requirement to have a pharmacist on the panel, and inhibits the government’s ability to make any changes in drug policy.

A majority of the remaining 28 members on the panel have threatened to resign over the firing if the government does not provide assurance of their freedom from political interference and allow them to speak their opinions publicly.

Created under the UK’s Misuse of Drugs Act of 1971, the ACDM is an independent panel of experts that advises the government on drug-related issues. Its job is to monitor the misuse of drugs in the UK and advise government ministers on improvement measures. A key function of the ACMD is to recommend changes in the legal classification of known or new drugs, and the government is legally obliged to consult the ACMD and publish its recommendations before changing the classification, although it is not obliged to follow those recommendations.

Opinion within the government on the firing is far from unanimous. Science and Innovation Minister Lord Drayson asked Prime Minister Gordon Brown to intervene and persuade Johnson to reverse his decision to dismiss Nutt.

The chairmen of other Home Office scientific advisory committees have filed formal protests. Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, chief executive of the Medical Research Council, said ministers risked losing the confidence of expert advisers unless they confirm their independence. He said the dismissal of the chief adviser created an “incredibly regrettable situation that has a potentially negative effect on the relationship between scientists and the government.”

In a letter to The Times, Ian Stolerman, emeritus professor of behavioral pharmacology at King’s College London, wrote: “All scientists who work without pay to advise the government must surely be considering their positions. After this unjustified dismissal, anyone who takes over from Professor Nutt risks being branded by the scientific community as a collaborator with a government that has no respect for expertise.”

The protests reflect scientists’ fears that the government may be secretly planning to downgrade their commitment to external scientific advice, and there is suspicion that politicians are becoming more inclined to shape public policy according to their own opinions, public opinion, and their political agendas rather than scientific fact and the findings of their advisors.

The scientific community will not be reassured by a recent report that the government was reviewing the future operational context of the council prior to Nutt’s dismissal.