THERE'S NO POINT IN ADVISERS IF THEY CAN SAY ONLY WHAT MINISTERS
WANT

This Government is fond of promoting its decisions as "evidence-based
policy", grounded in the findings of research. Civil servants and
scientists, however, like to joke that what it really values is
something rather different: policy-based evidence that justifies a
course of action that has been decided on for political reasons.

Ministers, of course, are perfectly entitled to do this. They are
democratically elected; expert advisers are not. While scientists
might prefer politicians to do as they are told, their view is often
just one of many factors to consider.

Few scientists who advise the Government are naive enough to expect
that their opinions will never be overruled, but if this is to happen
they rightly expect certain behaviour in return. They should be
consulted in good faith before a decision has been made. Their advice
should be clearly communicated to the public, along with an
explanation of why it has not been taken. And they should not be
admonished or silenced if their views are not politically convenient.

In the David Nutt affair, the Government has failed on all counts. The
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs was asked to review cannabis
after the Prime Minister had made his intention to toughen its
classification clear. Its findings were then released through the Home
Office press office, which briefed journalists negatively. Professor
Nutt's dismissal has now provided the final insult.

This saga could certainly deter experts from advising the Government,
not only in science but in other areas of public policy. We are not
talking about ministers that are bound by collective responsibility,
or Civil Service employees, but independent academics with a day job
who often give their time and knowledge for free. They have a right to
speak plainly, without being spun against or sacked. There is no point
in having expert advisers if they can say only what the Government
wants to hear.

In highlighting so clearly how ministers ought not to behave, Alan
Johnson may yet have performed a service to colleagues who value
scientific advice more highly than he does. His spectacular own goal
with the scientific community presents an opportunity to strengthen
its voice in Whitehall.

Lord Drayson, the Science Minister, would do well to use it to press
for two sensible proposals made recently by the Commons Science and
Technology Select Committee that would help to prevent a repeat of
this fiasco.

An independent media office serving all of the Government's advisory
panels would remedy the ridiculous situation where the Home Office was
tasked with communicating scientific advice it was keen to undermine.

Departmental chief scientists, too, should be required to report and
explain all instances where expert advice has been sought but not
followed. Both measures would make ministers think twice before
commissioning opinions they have no intention of heeding and then
shooting the messenger.