Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 2 November 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.1053
News: Q&A
Sacked science adviser speaks out
David Nutt explains what his dismissal means for drugs policy and scientific advice in Britain.
The UK government faces a revolt from its scientific advisers after it sacked the chair of its independent Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) last week.
Home Secretary Alan Johnson demanded the resignation.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
This interview on the “sacking†of Dr. Nutt from the drug policy advisory panel requires no comment from me since I basically agree with him on the criticism of drug policy . What surprises me is the lack of comments supporting the goverment`s stand! My guess is that usual “Nature.com†readers would rather be convinced by data and reasoning... then again, most readers here are scientists. We live on data a criticism.
Dr. Nutt, good luck and thank you for taking a stand.
David Nutt says he now has independent funding for a new scientific panel (BBC, 4 Nov 2009). This is an excellent, much needed idea.
Since the beginning of international drug prohibition in 1909, the leaders of this "social experiment" have ignored evidence and human rights, while claiming to act in the name of compassionate medical science. The resulting war on drug has been a "devastating public-policy disaster" (Lancet, Mar 2009).
We need to repeal the UN drug prohibition treaties of 1961, 1971, and 1988, as recommended in 2003 by the European Parliament's Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (RR\319267EN.doc), and implement actual drug control, which would involve pharmaceutical-grade manufacturing, accurate labeling, restricted sale, and harm reduction (see www.TDPF.org.uk).
The WHO estimates approx 200,000 excess deaths annually among problematic illicit drug users. This includes 59000 from AIDS (sterile needles are often banned), 69000 from opioid overdose (unknown purity of illicit drugs), and 32000 from suicide (social marginalization, persecution, lack of psych-care) (Degenhardt et al 2004, "Illicit Drug Use", ISBN:9241580313).
Also, the WHO estimates that 5 billion people live in countries with low or no access to controlled medicines and 6 million cancer patients die each year without sufficient pain medication (ACMP_BrNoteGenrl_EN_Feb09.pdf).
Nature News, please continue covering scientists working for drug reform, this is a major global human-rights issue.
Unfortunately, this is just another sad example of policy makers basing their decisions on ideology and not much else. Whenever the issue in question is "politically sensitive", (e.g. drug use, suicide, education levels and ethnicity, abortion, death penalty, women in top-management levels, etc.) the discussion immediately shifts away from any empirically obtained data and goes towards what the data should look like according to the ruling ideology, thereby completely ignoring a realistic solution to the problem at hand.
So much people and resources have been wasted by this type of policy making that many of the most negative effects that were caused by the original problem could have been alleviated a long time ago.
I think scientists should get more involved in society and call out politicians on their stubborn desire to remain unacquainted with the bare facts. I feel the title of Professor still caries a lot of weight to the general public.