David Nutt and scientific freedom

Like many others, I've often thought that alcohol and tobacco both present far greater health risks than many illegal drugs. If a tablet or joint produced the same effects as alcohol - nausea, blurred vision, inability to speak or think coherently, disorientation, loss of balance, vomiting, lack of inhibition... then its users would be shunned. I have to stress of course that I haven't studied this matter in any great detail, and that this is mere speculation. I am, as they say, no expert.

But what if I was an expert? Say, for example, I was the chair of the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs. Well that would make things a bit different.

The Home Secretary's firing of Prof David Nutt for his comments on certain drug policies may be a more controversial issue than it is being given credit for. There is an incredibly important point to be made regarding freedom of speech, espescially in science. Objectivity, and drawing conclusions from evidence rather than fitting evidence to a predetermined conclusion are cornerstones of good scientific method. Prof Nutt also has a responsibility to accurately inform the public about the dangers of drugs. In this regard there is absolutely no way in which government policy should have any effect on the publication of scientific results.

Now personally I'm sufficiently attached to free speech to accept this point as conclusive and leave the issue there. However, there is an alternative perspective that hasn't really been presented well. Prof Nutt is a well respected authority in the field, his opinion and findings will have an impact and force. Imagine that a similarly regarded scientist discovered a gene in a specific ethnic group that could, in certain circumstances, make them more inclined to rape and murder. I still don't think that research should be stifled, but how it is delivered, and to what initial audience would be an important issue.

Whatever the scenario, it certainly shouldn't be up to the Home Secretary or government policy to decide on scientific 'fact', nor what it is good for the public to hear. Whilst I don't accept my own opposing argument, I do think that there is good reason to be wary of allowing authority figures free rein in how and when they present potentially dangerous findings to certain audiences. Scientific evidence that cannabis should not be a class B drug, if presented badly and to the wrong people, could sound worryingly close to 'cannabis is perfectly safe'.