UK health secretary sacks drugs adviser

In summary, there is ongoing controversy surrounding the firing of a government advisor for allegedly creating confusion between scientific advice and policy. The advisor, David Nutt, has been criticized for his statements on drug classification and has been accused of taking on a political responsibility rather than remaining an independent scientist. However, Nutt's claims about the relative dangers of drugs such as LSD have been supported by scientific studies.
  • #1
muppet
608
1
For those who haven't come across this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm

My facebook status sums up my feelings on the subject:
Robert Old has never touched a spliff in his life, but thinks it's so patently absurd to sack a scientist for nominally creating "confusion between scientific advice and policy" that he's almost tempted to light up a camberwell carrot in protest.

Predictably, the shadow home secretary wallowed in the typical Tory self-image of the last bastion of law and order in a broken society, but the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman condemmed the move.

How do other people feel about this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
muppet said:
For those who haven't come across this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm

My facebook status sums up my feelings on the subject:


Predictably, the shadow home secretary wallowed in the typical Tory self-image of the last bastion of law and order in a broken society, but the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman condemmed the move.

How do other people feel about this?

Just goes to show how the world views scientific thought. I saw a book at the store the other day called 'Unscientific America' looked pretty interesting.
 
  • #3
I'd say Nutt is at least partly to blame for this. The fact is that at when he accepted the position as government advisor he ALSO took on a "political" responsibility and was no longer an independent scientist.
He must after all have realized that what we was saying in the media about the classification of cannabis etc was in fact more policy than science AND that the policy he was advocating was in direct conflict with the official line. He has also been very clumsy in his contacts with media and has made a number of very controversial statements.

Also, I don't know much about the medical effects of drugs but some of his statements DO seem rather strange. He has among other things claimed that LSD is no more dangerous than alcohol which I find rather hard to belive.
 
  • #4
f95toli said:
He has among other things claimed that LSD is no more dangerous than alcohol which I find rather hard to belive.

You may find it hard to believe, but it's true. LSD is nontoxic. It goes to show how schizophrenic the public view of drugs has become due to propaganda. In America, cocaine is classified as schedule II, while cannabis is classified as schedule I. The drug laws have more to do with history and politics than with their harmfulness.
 
  • #5
f95toli said:
I'd say Nutt is at least partly to blame for this. The fact is that at when he accepted the position as government advisor he ALSO took on a "political" responsibility and was no longer an independent scientist.
He must after all have realized that what we was saying in the media about the classification of cannabis etc was in fact more policy than science AND that the policy he was advocating was in direct conflict with the official line. He has also been very clumsy in his contacts with media and has made a number of very controversial statements.

Also, I don't know much about the medical effects of drugs but some of his statements DO seem rather strange. He has among other things claimed that LSD is no more dangerous than alcohol which I find rather hard to belive.
You should read the study "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs and potential misuse" (David Nutt, Leslie A King, William Saulsbury, Colin Blakemore). In terms of physical/psychological damage coupled with potential for abuse LSD isn't very harmful when compared to tobacco and alcohol.
 
  • #6
dx said:
You may find it hard to believe, but it's true. LSD is nontoxic.

Do you have a cite with its LD50?
 
  • #8
  • #9
f95toli said:
Also, I don't know much about the medical effects of drugs but some of his statements DO seem rather strange. He has among other things claimed that LSD is no more dangerous than alcohol which I find rather hard to belive.

Just to clarify: LSD is not only no more dangerous than alcohol, it's actually significantly less dangerous. Check the paper I linked to.
 

1. What is the role of the UK health secretary?

The UK health secretary is responsible for overseeing the healthcare system in the United Kingdom and making decisions related to public health policies and strategies.

2. Who is the drugs adviser that was sacked by the UK health secretary?

The drugs adviser who was sacked by the UK health secretary is Dr. David Nutt, a neuropsychopharmacologist and professor at Imperial College London.

3. Why did the UK health secretary decide to sack the drugs adviser?

The UK health secretary, at the time, Alan Johnson, decided to sack Dr. Nutt due to disagreements over his public comments and stance on certain drugs, including marijuana and ecstasy.

4. What are the implications of the UK health secretary's decision to sack the drugs adviser?

The decision to sack the drugs adviser has raised concerns about the independence and integrity of scientific advice in government decision-making, as well as the potential impact on drug policy and harm reduction strategies in the UK.

5. Has the UK health secretary sacked any other advisers in the past?

Yes, the UK health secretary has sacked other advisors in the past, including Professor David King, the government's chief scientific advisor, in 2008.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top