Leaning on advice

Abstract

The British government is in danger of falling out with senior science advisers. Nigel Williams reports. The British government is in danger of falling out with senior science advisers. Nigel Williams reports. The British government got into a bit of bother late last year over its relationship with scientific advisers after the home secretary, Alan Johnson, sacked David Nutt of Imperial College for criticising the classification of cannabis and ecstasy and for his views on the harmfulness of other drugs, such as alcohol. Many researchers were angered by the move and believe that advisers should be free to dissent from government policy, and ministers should give reasons when they reject advice. Draft guidelines were issued in December by Lord Drayson, the science minister, to reassure scientists who were concerned, but these have led to even greater concerns. Several provisions have caused ‘widespread alarm’ in the scientific community, the researchers said, in a letter to Lord Drayson and John Beddington, the chief scientific adviser. They say that these risk unsettling further good relationships between independent advisers and the government. A demand that advisers should not act to undermine mutual trust is vague and impossible to assess objectively and could thus be used to justify further dismissals of scientists who take unhelpful positions, they say. They also object to the notion that advisers and ministers should work together to reach a shared position. The letter says this runs counter to the requirement that scientific assessment of evidence should be clearly separated from political pressure, which was a central recommendation of the Phillips Report on the BSE crisis. The letter, which was submitted to a consultation on the draft new guidelines, has been signed by leading scientists including Colin Blakemore, the former chief executive of the Medical Research Council. Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society, said that he had not signed the letter as he was mentioned in it, but agreed with its contents. “The idea of developing a shared position might blur the boundary between objective scientific advice and policy. It seems to go against what should be the principle of having such advice, which is to separate it from policy.” Politicians on the science committees of both houses of parliament back the belief that the independence of scientific advisers should be built in to ministerial codes of practice. The House of Lords science and technology committee said that ministers must recognise “independent scientific advisory committees, and also the individual members of such committees, and ensure that explicit conventions are agreed on their right to express themselves publicly”. Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on science, said when the draft guidelines were published: “The proposal that neither the government nor the adviser ‘should act to undermine mutual trust’ presupposes that all potential advisers respect and trust politicians.” To restrict advisers to the subset who trust and respect the home secretary of the day is “tantamount to casting the fishing net into a friendly puddle and ignoring the heaving seas”.“The idea of developing a shared position might blur the boundary between objective scientific advice and policy. It seems to go against what should be the principle of having such advice.” “The idea of developing a shared position might blur the boundary between objective scientific advice and policy. It seems to go against what should be the principle of having such advice.” Tracy Brown, of the charity Sense About Science, said that the letter clearly reflected a wider concern in the scientific community. “We have received over 200 items of correspondence expressing frustration that, instead of affirming its commitment to the basic principle of independence, the government has cut out academic freedom and made suggestions that add greater uncertainty to the relationship,” she said. “Despite this, we believe the government still has an opportunity to restore the confidence of the scientific community by agreeing a strong set of principles for scientific advice and incorporating relevant aspects of it into the ministerial code.” Lord Drayson said: “The points of contention are fairly unanimous and I'm keen to address them, but we need to look closely at all responses.”