Selfsufficientish.com

We now have a situation in the UK in which a senior politician has openly declared that his scientific judgement is more valid than that of a consultative body of qualified and well-respected scientists (who, incidentally, give their time and talents for nothing). What the current furore is about isn't relevant - it's the "I know better than you" attitude which is in question.

Would it be fair to say that this is an admission that political "bending with the wind" is much more important to an incumbent government than the truth? I'm not so naive - I've always thought that to be the case. But I now wonder about a society in which a clear statement that this IS the case can be an acceptable state of affairs. How can one man's uninformed arrogance be tolerated when we are in a position where many more painful - and scientifically-based - decisions need to be taken if our grandchildren are to have any chance of a world in which to live?

David Nutt has been sacked by Alan Johnson for reaching conclusions based upon knowledge and for continuing to hold to those conclusions even after Alan Johnson informed him that his advice was to be ignored. So, that's "I disagree with your opinion so I'm going to ignore you; now, if you do the same thing and disagree with me, I'll sack you".

Foolish. Stupid. Inept. Arrogant. Juvenile. And, most of all, dangerous. How is any future government now going to get dependable scientific advice? Maybe they're not bothered.

Mike

The scientific evidence is that since America declared War on Drugs back in the sixties, with Britain and other countries following suit, the problem has escalated out of all proportion, combined with the creation of drug barons and drug related crime.

I've just realised what it all reminds me of ...

STOP PRESS ...

SUN GOES ROUND EARTH!

POPE FORCES SCIENTIST GALILEO TO RECANT

Mike

I propose that all MPs must have had a proper job outside Parliament, Law and head of business for at least 10 years prior to standing for election - jobs like shop assistant rising to floor manager, miner, bus driver, farmer, fisherman, car plant production operative, train driver, long standing pub landlord, nurse, care home staff, ambulance driver, fireman .... A period of 18 months on the dole so that the savings have run out would also be good experience.

That way we might get people who respect the skills and knowledge of people from other walks of life. I mean - can you imagine Kier Hardie or Dennis Skinner being elected nowadays.

However - the other side of the coin is that these scientists are advisers, not the final decision makers. I'm sure that there are better ways of ensuring that your advice is taken than going public to prove that the minister in question is a total ass. We all know that anyway - but it would be better to merely say that our considered advice was .... and that the minister felt that you the electorate would not be suited if he took this advice.

How to make an informed decision?
Scientific, empirical method?
Blind prejudice?
Appealing to tabloid mentality in the hope of being voted in again?

eenie, meanie minie ..........

Love and Peace
Jim

Scientific opinion is still just opinion. Science very rarely gives yes or no answers. A well design experiment can give a yes or no answer, especially if you ask the correct question, but how that translates in to the real world where test conditions and assumptions don't apply needs real human skills.

I'm not sure were I'm going with this but I find the whole media attitude to science appalling. They talk about science as if it was never taught in schools and about scientists as if they are aliens from another world.

It is quite possible for an MP to understand the science and the statistics behind scientific results and listen to other inputs, to social and moral factors and use all this information to make a balanced judgement. However it does seem quite wrong to sack people who say things you don't want to hear (science or not). And it's quite wrong to suppress the information you used, or ignored, when making that judgement. That's not open government, and it lacks accountability.

Point taken, Cloud. But no-one on the advisory panel (and I think there are 30 of 'em) expressed a hard opinion. What they did say was that there was no scientific evidence to support an action taken by the government. That's an entirely different thing and Alan Johnson, in taking action based very firmly on his own singular opinion (he has said that it was his decision alone) has effectively attempted to hide from the public eye the fact that the government has made a totally nebulous decision based more on vote-catching than anything else - certainly not from any informed basis.

You're quite correct in saying that we need politicians rather than scientists to make sure that all other factors are taken into account. But how did Alan Johnson do that? I see no other consultative body he asked (unless he's also keeping those quiet).

Unless a scientist has another axe to grind (which is usually obvious), it is a moral duty to present the evidence as it stands. Yes, an opinion can be formed but, without the supporting evidence, his/her scientific peers will make short work of that opinion. Any scientist presenting outdated or incomplete evidence would be a laughing stock. Mr. Nutt was therefore perfectly correct in his stance. For that, he got the sack.

Shame on you, Alan Johnson!

Mike

I haven't followed the ins and outs of this particular debate too closely so I may be covering something that is well covered elsewhere in the literature. I do however work regularly with an industry group that meets with government on scientific matters relating to the environment.

I see that MKG stated that the scientists had no firm evidence to support the decision that Alan Johnson has taken and I think that is a very fair point. But you must also consider if the scientists have any clear, undisputable evidence to support the stance that these drugs cause little or no harm - especially in the long term future? If not then the onus falls on the government to adopt what is called the precautionary principle, in the absence of definitve data either way they must err on the side of caution.

They do it with our evil nasty chemicals being pumped into the environment and they should do it with evil nasty chemcials being pumped into peoples bodies (naturally sourced or otherwise).

Well said, Cassiepod. You leave us, then, puzzling over the government decision to downgrade the substance in question in the first place. Either that decision or the latest one (or both!) has no basis in scientific evidence - and you can't err on the side of caution in opposite directions.

Mike