Headlines
The Review Online
Was it right to sack the Nutt?
3rd November 2009
The dismissal of Professor Nutt, Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), by Home Secretary Alan Johnson last week is turning out to be a largely regrettable action.
Not only have two further drug advisors resigned over the Nutt debacle, but a letter from Richard Garside today (Monday) reveals that, Nutt acted within the rules and regulations set out by the Government’s Code of Practice for Science Committees. Garside, Director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, King’s College, London, wrote to the Home Secretary saying: “I have to conclude that the public confusion between Professor Nutt’s academic role and his chairmanship of the ACMD has been sowed by the Home Office, not by Professor Nutt nor by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.”
Garside’s letter comes just days after the release of a leaflet which caused Johnson to dismiss the Professor. The leaflet summarised and concluded the Eve Saville lecture given by Nutt in July 2009 at King’s College.
It is now being debated whether Nutt is actually scientifically correct in saying alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than cannabis. The issue here for many, however, is not whether Nutt is factually correct about cannabis and its danger compared to alcohol and tobacco, but whether Nutt was denied freedom of speech. If one takes the clear-cut interpretation offered by Garside in relation to the Government’s official Code of Practice, then it would appear Nutt has been denied freedom of speech.
It is important to bear in mind, however, that if a government is to be successful in developing, shaping and making policy, it cannot afford to have confusion over its official line. Whilst Nutt’s remarks may have appeared to represent the Government view, or may have been feared to, it is imperative that scientists realise the potential of their remarks given the magnitude of their positions.
Additionally, the media have a part, albeit minor, to play in this. It seems absurd that what was essentially said in July has taken until now to be exposed. Moreover, if what Nutt is saying is so shocking, as the media make it out to be, it begs the question, “Why haven’t we heard about it until now?”
Crucially, it seems that a change or clarification of policy is needed. Firstly, scientists have to understand the potential gravitas of their remarks. Secondly, Government Ministers should seek better advice in what they should and should not do in relation to scientists’ freedom of speech.
Whilst it is likely that Nutt’s freedom of expression was infringed to a degree, both scientist and Minister are partially to blame here.