Science, politics and the public

Thu 04 Mar, 2010

The UK government’s science policy isn’t just contradictory, it’s used a stand-in for politics, says science journalist TIMANDRA HARKNESS

THE BRITISH government values science. And technology. It has a government Office for science, endearingly named ‘GO Science’, and a Council for Science and Technology, and a bunch of projects about improving the relationship between science and the rest of society.

So that whole Nuttgate thing last November was a bit embarrassing. You know, you have a committee of scientists to give you expert advice on drugs policy, and then the head of that committee appears in public saying that government policy is just wrong. So the minister sacks him for ‘campaigning against government policy’.

And before you know it, half a dozen scientists resign from the committee, (which, by the way, is not some optional thing - the law actually specifies that it must exist) and all the great and good scientists in the UK are writing angry letters about how politicians don’t respect the evidence.

So then Lord Drayson, the Science Minister, announces that they’re going to write new guidelines for how scientific advisors and politicians should work together. Which they do, in about six weeks. And they’re very conciliatory, full of cuddly words like ‘trust and respect’, ‘transparency and openness’.

‘The government and its scientific advisors should work together to reach a shared position….’ And ‘The government will explain the reasons for policy decisions, particularly when the decision appears to be at odds with scientific advice’. And lots of stuff about how scientific advisors are of course free to say whatever they like in public.

And those pesky scientists are still not happy. Now they’re all signing letters, and submissions to the official consultation, saying that academic freedom is central to the work of any scientist (not to mention of any human being with an opinion worth defending). And they don’t like the idea of working together with politicians ‘to reach a shared position’, not a bit. As they point out, where does that leave the independence of the advisory committee? Is the government suggesting that scientific evidence should be compromised to fit better with policy?

So last week the Science Minister and the government’s Chief Scientific Advisor, Professor John Beddington, were back before the Commons Committee on Science and Technology to tell them that the new guidelines would definitely be including the words ‘academic freedom’ and definitely not the phrase ‘shared position’. In fact, most of the concerns raised by Sense About Science, the Campaign for Science and Engineering, and the long list of prominent scientists who signed their responses, would be going right into the new government guidelines.

Anyone would think the government had never before considered how to use scientists to advise them on policy. But there were already guidelines in place before Professor Nutt ever stood up and said that cannabis was less harmful than alcohol, and didn’t deserve to be a Class B drug. In fact, they’re mentioned in a cheery GO Science report, ‘Science and Engineering in government’, published in, er, October 2009.

And those guidelines, (last consulted on and revised in 2007), explicitly say that ‘a committee advising on science would not normally undertake the role of policy making unless it is within their terms of reference’. Which says in so many words that Professor Nutt’s job is not to make policy, but to advise on the science. It even says ‘The task of policy making… is essentially one for government’.

So, as the chambermaid said to George Best: where did it all go wrong?

Scientists felt dismayed that, having been asked for their expert opinion on their specialist subject (there are over 75 Scientific Advisory Committees working with government) they might then be punished for openly speaking their mind. And, imperfect though it is, the process of science relies on publication and public argument, the constant challenging of ideas and the probing of evidence.

But Alan Johnson’s letter asking Nutt to step down from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) does not merely accuse him of contradicting official policy. ‘Your recent comments have gone beyond … evidence and have been lobbying for a change in government policy,’ he says. ‘As chair of the ACMD you cannot avoid appearing to implicate the Council in your comments and thereby undermining its scientific independence.’

So it’s the very scientific independence that campaigning scientists are so keen to defend, that the Health Secretary invokes to tell Professor Nutt to keep quiet on matters of policy.

Curiouser and curiouser.

The truth is, things are not so clear cut on either side of this fence. Scientists were swift to defend their freedom of speech, and rightly so. But alongside the outrage at telling a prominent academic not to have opinions in public, there is a streak of disrespect for politicians, and their unscientific, non-evidence-based opinions.

Staunch defender of science Ben Goldacre, for example, commented in his blog Bad Science that ‘research’ is the best way, not only to assess the physical risks of different recreational drugs, but also to decide on social and ethical issues. And if the published research on alternative drugs policies is not enough, ‘then they should commission more formal research: because it is a basic tenet of evidence based policy that if you discover a gap, you flag it up, and commission more work to fill it.’

A government that ignored scientific opinion when it reclassified cannabis (and thus decided what the legal penalties would be for possessing and using it) was accused of pandering to the electorate. Instead of indulging the prejudices of ignorant voters, goes the subtext, ministers ought to do what scientific advisors tell them. Even down to how long somebody caught smoking pot should go to jail.

That’s ‘evidence-based policy’, which is what they keep promising us, after all.

So the government have got themselves into this mess, to some extent. They’ve been very keen to tell us that their policy is not based on whim, or on vested interests, or – worst of all – on strongly-held political principles. Theirs is evidence-based policy, based on expert advice.

No wonder the experts get miffed when the politicians decide, after all, that laws should be made by people who were voted in and can, if we decide we don’t like the laws, be voted out again. Now, it’s unfashionable to respect politicians. But if you don’t respect the people that we have (however grudgingly) elected, you don’t respect the people who elect them – which is us.

A government that ignored scientific opinion when it reclassified Cannabis (and thus decided what the legal penalties would be for possessing and using it) was accused of pandering to the electorate. Instead of indulging the prejudices of ignorant voters, goes the subtext, ministers ought to do what scientific advisors tell them. Even down to how long somebody caught smoking pot should go to jail.

That’s ‘evidence-based policy’, which is what they keep promising us, after all.

No wonder the experts get miffed when the politicians decide, after all, that laws should be made by people who were voted in and can, if we decide we don’t like the laws, be voted out again.

But it’s still not clear cut. Because both politicians and savvy science organisations agree on one thing. You may not want to start a debate with the public, but you can’t ignore them. And if there’s one thing the public trusts less than a scientist, it’s a politician.

Though actually, according to a UK survey in 2007, there are several things the public trusts less than a scientist, including the police and the ordinary man or woman on the street. And journalists, who rank with politicians, right at the bottom, both trusted by only 18 per cent of the public. Which is hardly something I’d make up, is it?

Not that far from the GO Science report from last October, which says that ‘If policy is to succeed it not only needs to be based on sound evidence, but it needs to have sufficient support from the public.’ Meaning the scientific advisory process needs, ‘clear ethics, maximum transparency and effective arrangements for managing perceived or actual conflicts of interest.’

So when the new guidelines come out, and they emphasise that scientific advisors will be free to say exactly what they think (like Liam Donaldson, who announced to a Health Committee that he was in favour of banning smoking in public places, contrary to government policy) and that the scientific advice will be independent and unsullied by grubby politics, don’t be too quick to open the champagne.

Scientists and politicians actually agree that independent scientific advice is the best basis for policy. But not necessarily for the right reasons.

Politicians know that a fat file of evidence is the easiest way to avoid having to argue for a policy. They know that we’ll trust a scientist quicker than a politician. And they’d rather quibble over the relative dangers of ecstasy and horse-riding have to debate political issues like our freedom to take risks, for example.

Anyway, champagne’s bad for you. Worse than cannabis, that’s what the experts say.

Timandra Harkness is one of the convenors of ‘Evidence-based policy’, a debate at the Battle for Politics, Saturday March 20 in London.