It's Nutts!

The news that the UK Government's chief (unpaid) adviser on the level of risks associated with the taking of recreational psychoactive drugs has been sacked is no great surprise (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm). David Nutt paid the price for arguing that the taking of ecstasy is actually less risky than horse riding and that cannabis did not 'deserve' being elevated to class B (drugs are classed as categories A-C with A being the highest risk) and actually caused less damage than perfectly legal alcohol and tobacco. There are real difficulties interactions between scientists (who have to weigh complex evidence in a dispassionate way) and politicians (who have to deliver what the public-or at least a vociferous section of the public- want). This is further complicated by the media who generally want a good story with clear blacks and whites (rather than greys) in terms of evidence. Governments have repeatedly suggested that, in terms of the science, they want to adopt 'evidence-driven policy'. The difficulty comes when they feel that they dare not go where the science directs them. There are then two possible responses. They can argue that in spite of the science, they are compelled to make a particular decision (and the policy is no longer 'evidence-based') or they can try to change the science (and, as this is no longer science, irritate the people that they asked to make judgements on their behalf). You can see such tensions in many areas including child care, education and our penal system. The trouble is that scientists and politicians are supposed to operate in completely different ways with different sets of rules. One group is supposed to use evidence based on probability whereas their counterparts generally use advocacy (a convincing story). People from either tradition who use the techniques of the other culture often become unstuck.