SCIENTISTS QUIT GOVERNMENT DRUGS BODY OVER DAVID NUTT SACKING

The Government is facing mass resignations from the official advisory
body on drugs after the sacking of its chairman, The Times has learnt.

Two members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs quit
yesterday in protest at Alan Johnson's dismissal of David Nutt in a
row over the relative harm caused by drugs and alcohol.

Les King, an expert chemist, was the first to resign. He said that the
Home Secretary had denied Professor Nutt his right to free speech and
called for the council to become truly independent of politicians. He
was swiftly followed by Marion Walker, a pharmacist and clinical
director with the substance misuse service at the Berkshire Healthcare
NHS Foundation Trust.

The affair has led scientists to question the Government's wider
commitment to the independence of external scientific advisers, and
raised fears that experts will become reluctant to sit on advisory
panels.

Scientists on the council are preparing a letter to ministers seeking
assurances that they will remain free to set their agenda and to speak
freely about their research and findings. It is possible the 28
remaining members will quit if their concerns are not addressed before
a council meeting next week.

One of the country's leading experts on drug dependence said that,
without such assurances, it would be difficult for any scientist to
succeed Professor Nutt as council chairman while retaining the respect
of their peers.

In a letter to The Times, Ian Stolerman, Emeritus Professor of
Behavioural Pharmacology at King's College London, said: "All
scientists who work without pay to advise the Government must surely
be considering their positions. After this unjustified dismissal,
anyone who takes over from Professor Nutt risks being branded by the
scientific community as a collaborator with a Government that has no
respect for expertise."

Lord Drayson, the Science and Innovation Minister, was not consulted
or informed by Mr Johnson before Professor Nutt's dismissal, despite
his office being responsible for co-ordinating scientific advice
across Whitehall. He was unavailable for comment yesterday, but said
on his Twitter account that he would be "asking why he was not
informed, getting facts, and finding a solution".

Professor Nutt said that the council was no longer tenable as a
functioning advisory group. "I can't believe any self-respecting
scientist would serve on it," he declared. Writing in The Times today,
he calls for the creation of a truly independent advisory council on
drugs modelled on the way that interest rates are set by an expert
committee.

Professor Nutt was sacked after criticisms he had made of the
Government's drugs policy were published in a paper by the Centre for
Crime and Justice at King's College London. The comments were made in
a lecture he delivered in July, in which he said that Ecstasy and LSD
were less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes. He also criticised the
decision to upgrade cannabis to class B.

Mr Johnson insisted that he was right to force Professor Nutt to stand
down months after he took over as council chairman. "You cannot have a
chief adviser at the same time stepping into the public field and
campaigning against government decisions," he said.

A Home Office spokeswoman said: "We can confirm that Dr Les King has
resigned. We are not going to give a running commentary on the
speculation around further resignations."

Dr King said that the Government's attitude to the council had changed
in recent years and that Home Secretaries now had a "predefined
political agenda" when they asked for its expert advice.

"It's being asked to rubber-stamp a predetermined position," he said.
"He may be an adviser, but he's still got the right to say what he
likes. That was being denied."

Leading scientists said that the affair raised issues for scientific
advice across government. Colin Blakemore, Professor of Neuroscience
at Oxford University and former chief executive of the Medical
Research Council, said: "It is the responsibility of ministers, not
advisers, to make policy, and the drugs issue is of course
particularly sensitive, but there are clearly implications . . . for
all areas of scientific advice to government. I've served on a lot of
advisory committees, and I've never seen anything like this. I'm sure
that every independent expert who sits on an advisory committee would
now like an assurance that the Government remains committed to proper
consideration of the recommendations it receives.

"Also, I think it is important that the Government should permit
experts to engage publicly in discussion of the basis for their
opinions, even when the Government chooses not to accept them."