Science is about the way things are
Politics is about the way politicians want things to be
Nutt's report makes interesting reading:
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/op...drug_harms.pdf
Quote
This is an example of a
conversation that I’ve had many times with many
people, some of them politicians:
MP: ‘You can’t compare harms from a legal activity
with an illegal one.’
Professor Nutt: ‘Why not?’
MP: ‘Because one’s illegal.’
Professor Nutt: ‘Why is it illegal?’
MP: ‘Because it’s harmful.’
Professor Nutt: ‘Don’t we need to compare harms to
determine if it should be illegal?’
MP: ‘You can’t compare harms from a legal activity
with an illegal one.’
repeats …
Little bits of information are becoming apparent which make the whole thing clearer
This from The Times
So it certainly isn't a case of scientists talking policy without the full picture as has been suggested, it is politicians telling scientists what advice they've got to give. Appalling IMO.Les King, an expert chemist who resigned from the Council yesterday, ........
........said it was “not acceptable” for ministers to come to the council with preconceived ideas which they then expected to be endorsed.
“They have used the advisory council as a rubber stamp, as a poodle, by coming to the advisory council with a pre-determined agenda about drug classification,” he said.
“What really became a problem was when the current Prime Minister made it clear that he wanted another review of cannabis and that he wanted cannabis re-classified to class B. Now that’s not acceptable.”
Hi folks. When I saw the header for this thread I thought we would be discussing science v politics, and i apologize for veering from the drug tangent, plus there were only 17 replies instead of hundreds, so I felt like I could actually step in and address the OP.
Science means different things to different people. To the government, and the people who own and operate a respective country, only the technology of science has any real utility. To career politicians, bought and paid for by special interest, the value of science is about as practical as asking what is the sound of one hand clapping. They are not interested in just knowing things or understanding things. Science to them is a resource, a tool, to accomplish other objectives, objectives people like them have been hard after since we lived in caves.
Scientists must operate within that framework and they want social stability so they can pursue science, without too much government interference. They want funding, and they want an international network, for the effective exchange of formulas and theories and such. To that end, they will support some despicable governments, and claim to be apolitical.
This seems like a wise policy most of the time, but every once in a awhile, science-based duplicity in horrific giovernment action or policy forces scientists to play politics, and it's something they are not especially gifted at. Intellectuals as social activists usually don't inspire mainstream culture, Karl Marx, Noam Chomsky as two examples, toss in Timothy Leary. In the anti-intellectual USA, the last thing they want is smart, in anything, which is why they elected and then re-elected a moron president---"Look honey, the president isn't any smarter than we are!" "Yeah, isn't that great?" Hence, the projected popularity of Palin in 2012. But even in the UK, most people would vote for the village idiot for public offcie, or even just Boris Johnson, before, say, Richard Dawkins.
Technology is great, when it gives us modern conveniences, when it assists our fighting men overseas, but science is bad, when it says men evolved from apes and that our lifestyle and economic policies are causing Global Warming.
The average bloke loves technology, but has contempt for science, and the progressive intellectuals and skeptics common to the field, and when it comes to operating a country, the ruling elite are exactly like the average bloke.
RGC
I think that science has an important part to play in politics but I don't believe that it should rule all political decisions. Politics has to take into account lots of different approaches and opinions; for example the police will tell you they're far more effective at keeping us safe doing "behind the scenes" work, however the majority of the public feels safer when they see a policeman walking round their area. Politics has to balance the two.
Its the same with drugs, the evidence is there that there are plenty of more risky legal activities and substances however the perception was that the public did not want this evidence to influence policy. I think the outcry over Prof. Nutt's sacking provides contrary evidence to this.
I think a lot of blame for this has to lie with ignorant and bigoted daily mail-types that blindly insist all drugs are bad without actually looking at what the y're saying. Alan Johnson has pathetically rolled over and obeyed them.
Hi LYM.
Not sure why this discussion keeps coming back to drugs, maybe because the myopia of expedient self-interest trumps all.Originally Posted by lovelyyoungman
Were we to actually discuss the dichotomy of science ethics versus poltical compromise it might be a halfway interesting and entertaining thread, and I am thinking that would be true, even if I wasn't creatively enhanced from torching up the old chronic, not that I am.
During the Vietnam Conflict it was assumed, by even really smart folks, that the main opposition to the war was driven by the college educated, and everyday working class heroes staunchly supported the policies of LBJ and the military incursion, but long term studies of attitudes and opinions from that time indicate no group supported the war as enthusiastically as the college educated, and that this support holds true in most every culture historians and sociologists care to study.
So, to address the header, science v politics, those who have benefited from a system, and achieved a privileged niche, especially the respected niche of an educated professional, and this would certainly describe most scientists, tend to support entrenched power. The question is not IF this tendency influences the science of the respective society, but in what ways and to what degree. And a larger question asserts itself---is this the way it has to be or ought to be or is it a dysfunctional dynamic society should work to correct, and once corrected, would the result be a boon for scientific advancement and acceptance?
RGC
That's a pretty fair summing up of what happened though I think the outcry was because the press just want another stick to beat the government with.
Nutt was sacked not because his advice was different from the policy the government took or because he disagreed with the government but because he undermined government policy making it difficult for the minister to work with him. A political neccessity.
(Doesn't make the policy right though)
It keeps coming back to drugs because that's what the original post was about. Its also the topic that has prompted this whole debate in the media.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks