Thread: Politics and Science

In England, a scientific advisor to the Home Office stated that research had found, that the drugs cannabis and ecstasy were (in terms of the health of populations) less damaging than alcohol and cigarettes. He then criticised the governments decision to classify cannabis into a class B drug. According to the Home Secretary, it was this act (criticising the governments decision) that got him fired.

What do you think? Is it right that the Home Secretary fired him, or should scientists be allowed to publicly state both their findings and what they have concluded from their findings?

I think it was disgusting that Professor Nutt (the guy that got fired) was fired from a non-paid job for outing his views and findings. However, he was out of his place.

He is a scientific Advisor. He advises the government, but the Government is the ultimate decider. If they don't want to go through with the advice, it's their decision. He had worked as the Chief Scientific Advisor for over a decade (I think) and should have known his place, yet still he continued to bash the government and try to out his findings despite their decision.

He must have expected some kind of negative feedback from his actions.

BUT that does in no way compensate for the government's actions. Their reason for keeping it Class B was that it has been proved to 'lead on to harder drugs', which is absolutely ridiculous. If it was legalised and regulated it would become like alcohol, and then it wouldn't be a bridge onto cocaine etc.

I say turn to the laws in Amsterdam concerning Cannabis.

Still, if the Conservatives are put into power there is no way in Hell Cannabis will be legalised. Oh well.

-Nick

We're lucky that we live in a democracy, and that we can fire the government in May. I suppose that's why Nutt got fired, because the government care more about winning than being right or wrong.

Sometimes though it's pure revenge. Hazel Blears, I think it was, that spent over a week tracking down her whistleblower, sacking her, then resigning herself. She should have resigned a week earlier but seemed to hang on till she found the whistleblower.

Originally Posted by Chirios

In England, a scientific advisor to the Home Office stated that research had found, that the drugs cannabis and ecstasy were (in terms of the health of populations) less damaging than alcohol and cigarettes. He then criticised the governments decision to classify cannabis into a class B drug. According to the Home Secretary, it was this act (criticising the governments decision) that got him fired.

What do you think? Is it right that the Home Secretary fired him, or should scientists be allowed to publicly state both their findings and what they have concluded from their findings?

Well, at least now he can criticize your government's decision without worries of being fired.

unfortunately politics play a part in anything that involves other people, even on small scales.

it's just a necessary evil. it becomes pretty controversial when the field that involves "finding truth" or something similar(i.e. law, medicine, science).

in general it is the job of the manager above those scientists or doctors or lawyers to shield them from the politics, but nothing is perfect.

I see it in my job too, albeit much less severe since I'm not working with life altering subjects. Just recently we had to divert significant resources (in particular a whole week of my time, including a weekend) to solving an issue that didnt even matter, simply because of corporate politics.


in your case of the scientific advisor, i think his employers had every right to fire him for being an insubordinate jackhole. Likewise he had every right to stand up for what he believes in and he is dealing with the consequences of his decisions.

Scientists should be free to publicise, and debate, their findings. But employees who publicly criticise their employers can expect to be sacked, whether or not they deserve it.

This thread assumes that there is a clear dividing line between scientists and politicians, but there isn't. Scientists do have to play politics, because before science can become the quest for truth, it must first be the quest for funding.

Originally Posted by Non Serviam

Scientists should be free to publicise, and debate, their findings. But employees who publicly criticise their employers can expect to be sacked, whether or not they deserve it.

This thread assumes that there is a clear dividing line between scientists and politicians, but there isn't. Scientists do have to play politics, because before science can become the quest for truth, it must first be the quest for funding.

^Dude, excellent quote.

Tbh as I read more into the story I'm starting to get the impression that Professor Nutt was fired more for being an arsehole than he was for his science.

The Labour party is rather authoritarian. They don't like any criticism, actively suppress dissent, and, yes, they do care more about themselves than the country. One of their MPs confessed a few years ago that they started uncontrolled immigration to 'rub the right's nose in diversity.'

Professor Nutt is an arsehole, but he was also right, statistically-speaking. More people are killed each year in the UK in riding accidents than taking ectasy. Labour's decision to fire him is just what they do.

Originally Posted by Gallowglass

Professor Nutt is an arsehole, but he was also right, statistically-speaking. More people are killed each year in the UK in riding accidents than taking ectasy. Labour's decision to fire him is just what they do.

More people are killed in car accidents in a year than soldiers in Afghanistan, so we should all be at war?

All forms of addiction lead to harder abuse. It's like you can be hooked on pornography and you move onto harder and more extreme content. Some of the stuff those people enjoy I find deeply disturbing but they probably did to start with, too. Legalising drugs might put an end to dodgy dealers (probably not, though), but it would give abuse a stamp of approval, and while many are sensible enough to limit themselves to the occasional dabble at a party (which can be extremely dangerous), for example, how many are going to use these drugs as a regular escape from reality and then move on to bigger and better? The question is whether you have have a moral responsibility for those people or not. Some might say, educate them and then let them do what they want knowing the consequences, but I think education does very little for many. They know the health risks but they do it anyway because the pros are always more immediate than the cons.

If my boss asked for my advice, I'd feel free to give her my honest opinion. She then makes a decision based on all the advice given/her experience. It's not my place to repeatedly contradict her decision afterwards. If I do, it's pretty much a guarantee that at some point there will be major consequences, even if I was right.

Now if I was to go OUTSIDE the company and publicly denounce the decisions my boss or the organization was taking, the best I could hope for would be a package deal, instead of just a monster kick to the curb.

Scientists can be scientists at their whim, but if they want to be EMPLOYEES then they have to play by business rules.

The Ivory Tower is a much safer place to play.

It would appear that big tobacco owns a lot of people worldwide.

The fact is legal drugs kill thousands of times more people than illegal ones. Prescription drugs are by far he most harmful and deadly.