Science vs Politics

[Squalo Tigre]

The government has sacked their scientific adviser on drugs because they don't like what he is telling them.

Being a natural skeptic this highlights the fact that the government want to pick and choose the advise they follow to suit their polices.

So how much notice should we take to any advise given by our government ?

[Croydon Bob]

So how much notice should we take to any advise given by our government ?

It depends...

This is hardly a new thing. In the 80s the Tories kept employing advisors and "experts" to tell them how to privatise the railways and then sacking them when they concluded that it was an insane thing to do.

In the late 90s New Labour were telling their Scientific Advisors that "global warming" was not an issue and that they didn't want to hear about it. But they were talked around without a glut of sackings.

If Government advice is being issued because the genuine experts are telling the Govt something, then we should look at that advice seriously. If the politicians are making it up based on the editorial column in the Daily Mail then we should treat it with less respect.

[Pebble]

The serious issue is that it brings the law into disrepute. It is now clear that many illegal drugs are banned, because of politics rather than evidence. This means that the government has failed to make the case for compliance with the law - in a consensus democracy this has dangers.

I suspect the argument would be that the health effects of said drugs is only one issue, that other social impacts of legalising/tolerating such agents are intolerable - but that case has not been made in any credible fashion.

[chaggle]

The serious issue is that it brings the law into disrepute. It is now clear that many illegal drugs are banned, because of politics rather than evidence. This means that the government has failed to make the case for compliance with the law - in a consensus democracy this has dangers.

I suspect the argument would be that the health effects of said drugs is only one issue, that other social impacts of legalising/tolerating such agents are intolerable - but that case has not been made in any credible fashion.

In other words - the government has used further criteria other than just science to formulate policy. This is OK but they should say so and say what the other criteria are.

If Prof. Nutt was sacked for criticising and undermining government policy while not knowing all the facts then perhaps the sacking was justified.

[Squalo Tigre]

If Prof. Nutt was sacked for criticising and undermining government policy while not knowing all the facts then perhaps the sacking was justified.

I think it was more a case of the facts didn't fit the governments policy and that's what Prof. Nutt was telling them.

Rather than getting involved in a debate the government want's someone who will toe the party line and say what they want to hear.

[chaggle]

I think it was more a case of the facts didn't fit the governments policy and that's what Prof. Nutt was telling them.

Rather than getting involved in a debate the government want's someone who will toe the party line and say what they want to hear.

You're almost certainly right - I was play devil's advocate a bit (well it is Halloween)

I would be interested to know what exactly is influencing policy in this area.

BTW - welcome to the forum.

[davidrodway]

Make Poverty History - free drugs now!

[polomint38]

Make Poverty History - free drugs now!

Which three drugs do you want!

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Which three drugs do you want!

Just three?

Pecca fortiter, I say!

[Tony Williams]

The government's medical adviser put the argument this morning. He said that there are three elements in deciding what happens: the scientific advice, the policy-making process and the reality of what the public can be convinced about. In other words, the scientists need to convince the public, then the politicians will be happy to fall into line.

[davidrodway]

The government's medical adviser put the argument this morning. He said that there are three elements in deciding what happens: the scientific advice, the policy-making process and the reality of what the public can be convinced about. In other words, the scientists need to convince the public, then the politicians will be happy to fall into line.

Yes , but that doesnt excuse sacking your scientists when they disgree with you. I see someone else o the panel has resigned in protest, and rightly so.


"The serious issue is that it brings the law into disrepute" - Pebble

And , more immediately , it undermines the credibility of the drug clasification system. If class C drugs are put in a higher class just because it is politic to do so, why shoud anyone give it any credence?

More widely, if politicians are going to disregard scientific advice, how can we trust their decisions on say climate change or health care?

[bindeweede]

I'm not sure if this is helpful.

Marijuana for medical reasons — to tackle chemotherapy-induced nausea or Aids-related wasting or glaucoma, among other conditions — is now legal in 13 states, including the biggest, California. Next year, 13 more states are planning referendums or new laws following suit. Last week a California legislative committee held the first hearings not simply on whether medical marijuana should remain legal, but on whether all marijuana should be decriminalised, full stop. The incentive? The vast amounts of money the bankrupt state could raise by taxing cannabis.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6897958.ece

[Tony Williams]

The incentive? The vast amounts of money the bankrupt state could raise by taxing cannabis.

Not to mention the amounts they'd save through not investigating, prosecuting and imprisoning dealers.

Legalising the harder drugs as well would bring an even bigger bonus: vast reductions in both organised and petty crime.

It's an interesting social question, with strong arguments on both sides.

[Ryoden]

Not to mention the amounts they'd save through not investigating, prosecuting and imprisoning dealers.

Legalising the harder drugs as well would bring an even bigger bonus: vast reductions in both organised and petty crime.

It's an interesting social question, with strong arguments on both sides.

My friends and I quite often have this conversation, the pros and cons of total drug legalisation. I personally think that more problems would be solved than created by legalising all drugs, we already have cigarettes; which can kill you and they are quite legal.

I don't know the percentages but a considerable amount of crime is drug related, if addicts could buy their fix over the counter (suitably taxed) then I guess the drug related crime rate would drop. A lot of the problems the public see from drugs are due to addicts not being able to get their fix, as long as the gov puts all the usual "eating/smoking/injecting this will probably kill you"

You get given all the relevant information and then you make an informed decision as people do with cigarettes, or jumping out of a plane, or tomb stoning, or any number of other risk vs reward things which people do regardless of warnings.

Obviously this is a very simplified view but I agree that the Gov would rather make decisions based on politics than science.

This text was cut from Mark Easton's BBC piece:

The BSE disaster in the 1980s and 90s is a case in point: some advisers and government-employed scientists said they told Ministers they feared the disease in cows could spread to humans - warnings that were not published nor heeded until it was too late.
The science did not fit in with the Ministry of Agriculture's policy that British beef was entirely safe. Remember John Gummer trying to shove that burger into his daughter's mouth outside Parliament in 1990?

[chaggle]

Alan Johnson's facebook is taking a bit of a beasting

Example:

Edward Gommon Johnson, you are a nobhead. You are going against scientific research with the Professor Nutt thing. Typical of the totally misguided drugs policy of the last 40 odd years. I could see the logic was flawed and didn t stack up when I was a 15 year old pothead.

Mark Doran Congratulations, Johnson: you've now made sure that the entire country will remember you as nothing more than an irrational, high-handed, science-denying coward.

And some photo's too