JOHNSON UNDER FIRE AS MORE ADVISERS THREATEN TO RESIGN

Decision to Sack Top Drugs Scientist Threatens to Tear Apart Council
Established in 1971

The future of the Government's scientific advisory council on illegal
drugs hung in the balance last night as further resignations were threatened.

After four days of increasingly acrimonious exchanges between the
Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, and the scientific establishment
following the sacking of Professor David Nutt, the Advisory Council
on the Misuse of Drugs which Professor Nutt chaired until Friday,
broke its collective silence for the first time.

In a letter to Mr Johnson yesterday, the council said that while it
had not been possible to contact all 28 remaining members - two
resigned at the weekend - "it is clear that a majority of the council
have serious concerns" about Professor Nutt's dismissal and the
future of the council.

The letter said the case had "brought to the fore wider and
pre-existing concerns among members about the role and treatment of
the council". It added: "For some members these matters are of such
seriousness as to raise the question whether they can, in good
conscience, continue on the council. In this situation members wish
for clarity and assurances about how the ministers view the council's
advice and will view the council's advice in the future."

Mr Johnson proffered an olive branch in the shape of a promise to
meet them "shortly" - possibly at their scheduled meeting next Monday
- - and praise for their work. In a statement to the Commons he said
the advisory council, set up in 1971, had been "invaluable to the
successive governments it has served". But he told MPs that he had
"lost confidence in the professor's ability to be my principle
adviser on drugs" because he had "acted in a way that undermined the
Government rather than supporting its work".

The row erupted last week after Professor Nutt said the dangers of
alcohol and tobacco were more serious than those posed by ecstasy and
LSD and criticised the decision to move cannabis to Class B. It
emerged yesterday that a review of the council's functions, planned
before the present row erupted, is under way. But Mr Johnson said it
was part of a routine Cabinet Office value-for-money review of
non-departmental public bodies and not linked to Professor Nutt's departure.

Bitter criticism from scientists of the Government's role continued
to flood in yesterday as the row escalated. Sir John Krebs, former
head of the Food Standards Agency, said the Government operated a
"pick and mix" approach to scientific advice. "When it suits the
Government (for instance, on BSE in meat, badgers and bovine
tuberculosis) ministers say they 'cannot make policy without the
scientists - we have to go with what the scientists tell us'. If
ministers reject science advice they should be completely open about
why, and the advice itself should be totally public. There should be
no gagging of scientific advisers.

"I cannot imagine any reputable scientist wanting to take on David
Nutt's job with Alan Johnson as Secretary of State. All academics
will think hard about offering their advice in such a regime. Without
science advice the Government is compromised."

Opposition politicians were more muted in their criticism, refusing
to attack Mr Johnson over the sacking of Professor Nutt, who is seen
as a loose cannon because of his comparison of the dangers of ecstasy
with riding a horse and similar remarks. The Tory leader David
Cameron branded the row "very unseemly", and said there had been a
"breakdown of confidence" between the Government and its advisers.
But he said everyone who takes part in public life "has to think
about what they are saying and the way they are saying it".

Mr Johnson was backed by Gordon Brown yesterday. But the Prime
Minister came under fire from the former home secretary Charles
Clarke, who said it had been wrong for the Prime Minister to say at
the beginning of his premiership that he was going to change the
classification of cannabis - from Class C to Class B - before the
advisory committee had considered its position. "I think that was an
error," said Mr Clarke.