After the Sack

While the news spike following the sacking of Professor Nutt appears to be waning, there are going to be several things going on in Britain around this action over the next few weeks and months.  Besides the news value in what happens when Home Secretary Johnson, chief science adviser Beddington, and Professor Nutt appear before a Parliamentary committee, there is the ongoing discussion of drug policies in Britain, and the concern over what this sacking should change (and will change) with respect to science advisers in the U.K. government.  Anyone thinking this will bring down the government, or the Home Secretary that fired Nutt, is probably thinking wishfully.  As far as I can tell, the only government official to speak against the sacking is science minister Drayson, not his boss Peter Mandelson, not science adviser Beddington, nor anyone from the opposition parties.  The intergovernmental squabble is likely to be between the Parliamentary committee and the Home Secretary.

I’ll speak at more length about this in subsequent posts over the next few days (though my comments on Roger Pielke’s blog posts on this topic outline some of my thinking), but there are some things likely to be lost in the aftermath of the sacking.

First, whether or not chairs of advisory committees have different standards to uphold compared to regular members.  The typical comments from those appalled by the sacking seem to leave out the fact that Professor Nutt was not just a member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), but also its chair.  My review of the Council’s Code of Practice indicates that the chair has additional responsibilities, and Nutt’s strong advocacy can make it look as though he would have difficulty engaging all of the Chair’s responsibilities to consider the views of all members.

There’s also the issue of whether the ACMD is an advisory body, or a scientific advisory body, and whether that difference should matter.  The makeup of the ACMD includes scientists, educators, medical professionals and others who assist those harmed by drugs, and police.  Would all of this advice be scientific?  If not, should it have the same expectations as a scientific advisory body?

There’s the question of separating what an advisory board member (or chair) would say as a citizen, or in their capacity with the board.  Only Nutt could speak for the ACMD, unless he designated someone else.  This control over the public pronouncements of the board likely heightened the challenge of separating speaking in his official capacity from his speaking as a citizen.   Whatever principles are developed in the wake of this incident should make this separation policy more clear and more definitive that the current policy.  Under those conditions, simply not mentioning the government affiliation is supposed to make it clear that the person is speaking just for themselves.  Make the separation an act of commission, not omission.

Some of the columns on this firing have taken a pretty hard stance one way or the other about scientists advising government.  Either they think scientific advice should dictate policy, or they think scientists have no business advising government unless they are part of it (read: elected), otherwise they will dictate policy.  This tension appears completely off the table, as scientists in the U.K. have pushed the angle that they – collectively – have been wronged by this firing.  They do acknowledge in their proposed principles for science advisers that there are other factors that go into policy decisions, but it’s a point often lost in the heat of this discussion.

Finally (at least for this post), there is a question for Professor Nutt that will likely go unasked and/or unanswered.  Have you advocated for these changes in ACMD meetings?  Why did you feel it necessary to speak out as a member of the public to advocate for change?  You were in a position to work through a government body to make the kind of recommendations for policy change that you are speaking for in public, but I’ve seen no indication in your public pronouncements that you tried to shift drug policy to a more ‘rational’ assessment while in the ACMD.  If you didn’t think you could do your job effectively, why not resign and make your complaints known at the press conference?  I can only speculate, and would like to hear from Professor Nutt on these points.  I won’t hold my breath.