(no subject)
The comments on this Times Eureka blog entry clarifying that Nutty did not breach government guidelines 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' escapes my wrath because legitimately considering non-physiological impacts such as effects on schooling, lack of quality control, funding crime etc (social factors outside Nutty's scientific area of expertise) may well have been in mind - areas for other experts or pure policy decisions. That doesn't make the medical science subjective though - just interpretations of its relative importance balanced against other, non-physiological, risk areas).
Best comment MickGJ
The ACMD actually has its own Code of Practice, which is conveniently located on the Home Office's own website.
... "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."
The Tories have of course given their backing for the Johnson - can't have evidence and regulations getting in the way of kneejerk politicking.
Later edit 12/11/09: Cogent explanation of why advisors are likely to be at recurrent loggerheads with politicians unless the existing, let alone new, guidelines are recognised by the politicians in this letter to the Times.
Later edit 15/01/10:
NB Highly recommended BBC (Mark Easton) blog entry 1 Nov 2009 looking at past gov relationships to science advisors, and connecting to his previous entries on the topic: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/11/why_was_david_nutt_sacked.html
In other words, the minister sees the relationship between his scientific advisers and his department as, essentially, a private one: you tell us about the "matters of evidence", as he describes them in his letter, and then shut up.
Far from using independent experts to "lend credibility to public pronouncements about risk" (in the ACMD's case, the risk from illegal drugs), the home secretary wants them to stay silent because "it is important that the government's messages on drugs are clear and as an adviser you do nothing to undermine public understanding of them".
Sense About Science, involved in establishing the original principles http://bit.ly/scienceadvice , were rather het up about the sacking -
Comment on the sacking of Professor David Nutt - 30/10/09 and suggested a new set of principles for the relationship between UK government science advisors and those they advise: Principles for the Treatment of Independent Scientific Advice - 03/11/09
'Sian Cavanagh | 2 Nov 2009 20:10:39' I'm looking at you.
('M Macdonald | 2 Nov 2009 19:36:42' escapes my wrath because legitimately considering non-physiological impacts such as effects on schooling, lack of quality control, funding crime etc (social factors outside Nutty's scientific area of expertise) may well have been in mind - areas for other experts or pure policy decisions. That doesn't make the medical science subjective though - just interpretations of its relative importance balanced against other, non-physiological, risk areas).
Best comment MickGJ
The ACMD actually has its own Code of Practice, which is conveniently located on the Home Office's own website.
... "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."
The Tories have of course given their backing for the Johnson - can't have evidence and regulations getting in the way of kneejerk politicking.
Later edit 12/11/09: Cogent explanation of why advisors are likely to be at recurrent loggerheads with politicians unless the existing, let alone new, guidelines are recognised by the politicians in this letter to the Times.
Later edit 15/01/10:
NB Highly recommended BBC (Mark Easton) blog entry 1 Nov 2009 looking at past gov relationships to science advisors, and connecting to his previous entries on the topic: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/11/why_was_david_nutt_sacked.html
In other words, the minister sees the relationship between his scientific advisers and his department as, essentially, a private one: you tell us about the "matters of evidence", as he describes them in his letter, and then shut up.
Far from using independent experts to "lend credibility to public pronouncements about risk" (in the ACMD's case, the risk from illegal drugs), the home secretary wants them to stay silent because "it is important that the government's messages on drugs are clear and as an adviser you do nothing to undermine public understanding of them".
Sense About Science, involved in establishing the original principles http://bit.ly/scienceadvice , were rather het up about the sacking -
Comment on the sacking of Professor David Nutt - 30/10/09 and suggested a new set of principles for the relationship between UK government science advisors and those they advise: Principles for the Treatment of Independent Scientific Advice - 03/11/09