Professor David Nutt, chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, an independent advisory body, was forced to step down in October 2009 following statements that were viewed as potentially damaging to the government's efforts to provide a clear directive on drug abuse. The dismissal led to uproar in the scientific community as several prominent scientists from the Royal Society, the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council rallied to Nutt's support. Tension between the scientific community's position and public policy on issues with societal implications is not unexpected. Cell biologists will remember that in 2004, Elizabeth Blackburn was no longer welcome on the Council for Bioethics under the Bush administration for her views on stem cell research.

Clearly, governments must balance recommendations from experts against various other social, ethical and economic issues when framing public policy. But summarily dismissing scientific advice or retaliating against experts who voice opposition to specific policies will only stifle debate and discourage independent input. Expecting independent advisors to endorse governmental policies that reject evidence-based claims would not only erode their credibility, but would undermine the role of expert advice.

Government agenda will not always coincide with the advice offered by experts. Providing greater transparency into why certain recommendations were rejected would be helpful and, in light of recent events, the UK government has been urged by the scientific community to adopt measures that would encourage more openness when expert advice is rejected. As governments are increasingly faced with the challenges of developing sustainable policies in areas as diverse as stem cell research, pandemic response, energy and climate change, sound and independent scientific advice is crucial; public trust depends on it.