(Untitled)

[a_llusive]

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

Comments

[a_llusive]

Memo to self. When dithering about whether to comment in an original or blog myself, don't opt for both when too tired to proofread my copy and pasting. Or at least primarily write in the non-editable comment. Doh.

ACMD Chair finally filled Jan 2010.

[a_llusive]

Reports still phrase Nutty's departure as 'fired for "crossing a line,"' rather than unfairly dismissed, as I believe was the case (see main post above).

Howver, Iversen's work unsurprisingly has similar results to Nutty's and the government has tacitly admitted error
One effect of the row over the sacking is that the home secretary is now obliged to meet the council formally once a year and its chairman more regularly. Johnson has also agreed that in future the committee's reports will not be dismissed out of hand but given proper consideration.'

Another science issue where Evan Harris was vocal and spot-on

[a_llusive]

or his team were

http://drevanharrismp.wordpress.com/2009/11/

Follow-up on appointment of new advisor

[a_llusive]

and on CaSE in the UK debate January 2010 http://a-llusive.livejournal.com/147478.html