ADVISING THE UK GOVERNMENT

All too often governments make political policy choices rather than
evidence-based ones. This approach has caused deep consternation
among the scientific community in the UK, where a schism now exists
between the government and its scientific advisers.

The trouble started last October after David Nutt, chair of the
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), was sacked for
publicly speaking out against the government's decision to ignore the
ACMD's advice on cannabis. In November, the scientific community,
though understandably angry at the way in which the government had
treated a respected scientific adviser, decided to respond in a
constructive manner. 90 senior scientists, scientific advisers, and
Sense about Science--an independent charity promoting good science
for the public--drafted a set of principles on the treatment of
scientific advice and sent them to the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.
The principles fall under three themes: academic freedom to express
views openly without restriction, independence of operation, and
proper consideration of advice by ministers. The code enshrined what
scientific advice to government should be--independent of political
interference and ideology.

How did the government respond? It redrafted the principles to suit
its agenda. Most notably, the government dropped academic freedom as
a principle and inserted "trust and respect". Under this heading it
states that: "The government and its scientific advisers should work
together to reach a shared position, and neither should act to
undermine mutual trust." However, asking scientific advisers to
collude with government to reach a "shared position" on policies
would undermine the independence of scientific advice.

Essentially, these revisions represent an attempt by government to
avoid any future public dissent from its scientific advisers.

The government must now listen to the concerns that have been raised
over its version of the principles and revise them accordingly. Doing
so will restore the confidence of both the scientific community and
the public in ministerial policy making. It will also help to repair
the damaged relationship that exists between the government and its
scientific advisers.