UK: Can the politics bail on scientific advise?

21 07 2010

“All too often governments make political policy choices rather than evidence-based ones. This approach has caused deep consternation among the scientific community in the UK, where a schism now exists between the government and its scientific advisers.
The trouble started last October after David Nutt, chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), was sacked for publicly speaking out against the government’s decision to ignore the ACMD’s advice on cannabis.

In November, the scientific community, though understandably angry at the way in which the government had treated a respected scientific adviser, decided to respond in a constructive manner. 90 senior scientists, scientific advisers, and Sense about Science—an independent charity promoting good science for the public—drafted a set of principles on the treatment of scientific advice and sent them to the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. The principles fall under three themes: academic freedom to express views openly without restriction, independence of operation, and proper consideration of advice by ministers. The code enshrined what scientific advice to government should be—independent of political interference and ideology.
How did the government respond? It redrafted the principles to suit its agenda. Most notably, the government dropped academic freedom as a principle and inserted “trust and respect”. Under this heading it states that: “The government and its scientific advisers should work together to reach a shared position, and neither should act to undermine mutual trust.” However, asking scientific advisers to collude with government to reach a “shared position” on policies would undermine the independence of scientific advice. Essentially, these revisions represent an attempt by government to avoid any future public dissent from its scientific advisers.

The government must now listen to the concerns that have been raised over its version of the principles and revise them accordingly. Doing so will restore the confidence of both the scientific community and the public in ministerial policy making. It will also help to repair the damaged relationship that exists between the government and its scientific advisers.”

This is what the Lancet wrote about the issue in February this year. Since then, a new government has been formed out of a coalition between the Tory (conservatives) and the Lib-Dem.

But yet, nothing has been done to ensure independent scientific advice to be considered by the parliament.

It looks like ex Prime Minister G. Brown left the draft in a secure place or that the new government has other more important issues (?!)

Source: The Lancet





Will California be the pioneer in drug policy changes?

21 07 2010

Legalize-cannabisCalifornia — In 1971 a group of teenagers in San Rafael, north of San Francisco, started meeting after school, at 4:20 p.m., to get high. The habit spread, and 420 became code for fun time among potheads worldwide.

Ever since, California has remained in the vanguard of global cannabis culture. Oaksterdam University in Oakland is today unique in the world as a sort of Aristotelian lyceum for the study of all aspects — horticultural, scientific, historical — of the weed.

Legally, California has also been a pioneer, at least within America. In 1996 it was the first state to allow marijuana to be grown and consumed for medicinal purposes. Since then, 13states and the District of Columbia have followed, and others are considering it.

But this year California may set a more fundamental, and global, precedent. It may become the first jurisdiction in the world to legalize, regulate and tax the consumption, production and distribution of marijuana. Read the rest of this entry »








%d bloggers like this: