05 November 2009

The Nutt case: Downing Street march

Apparently there is going to be a march of scientists on Downing Street in order to call on the Government to back evidence-based drug policy by respecting and upholding the independence of the ACMD.

Does anybody have any details? Do we just turn up? If so, when?





Here are the details which keep changing so check the latest on facebook (with thanks to Bendy Girl):

Rally for Professor David Nutt and Evidence Based Drugs Policy.

We are calling on members of the academic community, parents, young people, students and concerned members of the public to join us at 1pm on Saturday the 7th of November outside Downing Street. We will be there to show our support for Professor Nutt and to call on the government to back evidence based drugs policy by respecting and upholding the independence of the ACMD.


THIS PROTEST IS NOT ABOUT THE LEGALISATION OF DRUGS: IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT ALL PROTESTORS ATTENDING STICK TO THE MESSAGE. THIS IS ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT LISTENING TO THEIR OWN ADVISERS.


PS Yes we do have police permission.

6 comments:

Iain Brassington said...

I'm assuming that, whatever the published time of the march, most people will turn up three hours late, giggling slightly, and wondering where they can get hold of a pack of chocolate Hob-Nobs.

Then they'll have a nice sleep.

BenefitScroungingScum said...

Here's the link to the petition http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Back-Prof-Nutt/

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=168169533180 facebook group organising the protest. In case you can't access, it's at 1pm on Sat 7th Nov opposite Downing St. You may want to double check the time as it has been changed not to conflict with laying of wreaths.

I can't make it so if you do, shout for me too please Dr G!
Bendy Girl

Dr Grumble said...

Thanks, Bendy Girl. It seems the latest time is noon on Saturday.

me said...

"THIS IS ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT LISTENING TO THEIR OWN ADVISERS."

What does this mean?

And, Prof Nutt was asked to leave because he crossed the boundary between advising the government AND making views against goverment policy public ... so, what is this march about then? What does 'listen' mean here?

Anonymous said...

what qualifies someone as a "scientist"? will an MSc do?

Dr Aust said...

"me"

Nutt is not a Government adviser in the usual sense that an "adviser" is a paid employee, like the Chief Scientific Adviser and other civil servants. Nutt is an academic, paid nothing, and appointed to a statutory body whose job (clearly set out in their terms of reference) is to tell the Govt what the scientific evidence actually says. Not what the government wants to hear. Read David Colquhoun's spot-on summary in the BMJ.

Alan Johnson sacked Nutt for what he said in an academic lecture whose content was not overtly critical of Govt. Furthermore, since giving the lecture was part of Nutt's day job (the one he is actually paid to do), what he says in it is in no way part of the Govt's purview. It is his considered opinion as an expert.

The anomaly is that Johnson is able to sack Nutt from this post. The body should be wholly independent, with the Chair appointed from within the Committee.

If Johnson were then to want to hire a "private office" drug policy adviser who was an "on message" paid yes man, so be it. At least that would be the politicians being honest about what they really wanted. However, said hypothetical person, if what they advised was contrary to all the other (real?) expert opinion, might have rather little credibility out in the wider world of drug policy. But of course this hasn't stopped Govts before in other areas, like when Andrew Adonis basically ran national education policy from Tony Blair's Private Office as the "PM's Education Special Adviser".

The problem is that the politicians want to be able to say:

"We are acting directly in accordance with the evidence and independent expert opinion"

- precisely when they aren't. You can hardly blame the independent experts for pointing out when the politicians engage in this kind of routine (for politicians) but nonetheless rather blatant dishonesty.