Minister promises guidelines on independence of science advisers
Science minister Lord Drayson says the scientific community is right to be upset about the sacking of David Nutt, but defends the government’s right to ignore scientists’ advice
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/nov/06/drayson-guidelines-science-advisers-nutt
The science minister, Lord Drayson, has committed the government to producing guidelines by Christmas to ensure the independence of its scientific advisers. The move comes after ministers faced days of criticism from senior scientists over the sacking of the government drugs adviser David Nutt.
“What’s happened is that the dismissal of Prof Nutt and the circumstances around that has upset, rightly, the scientific community and led to a lot of concern,” said Drayson. “The government understands the importance of independent academic advice.”
He said the events of the past few days had brought the concerns of scientists and their relationship with government to the top of the agenda. “If I had been consulted by the home secretary [before he sacked David Nutt], I would have had an opportunity to have said to him that there is a rumbling concern within the academic community with regards to the independence of scientific advice.”
Drayson was in Japan last week when Nutt was sacked and returned to the UK on Tuesday. He has spent the past few days in meetings with cabinet colleagues, government science advisers and members of the scientific community in an attempt to find out why he was not consulted about the sacking and also how the government could come up with a solution.
The minister’s initial response, leaked in an email earlier this week, was to say he was “pretty appalled” by the decision. But he later said that both the home secretary and the prime minister had assured him they understood the importance of independent scientific advice and academic freedom.
To remedy the situation, Drayson said he would take forward the guidelines issued by senior scientists today as a way to keep scientific advice free from political interference.
More than 20 academics drafted the guidelines, which they said “would enhance confidence in the scientific advisory system and help government to secure essential advice”. Signatories included the former chief of the Medical Research Council Colin Blakemore, former government chief scientist Robert May, the president of the Royal Society Martin Rees and the director of the Science Museum Chris Rapley. In addition, there are chairs and other members of independent scientific advisory committees and the heads of several academic and research bodies.
The guidelines argued that “disagreement with government policy and the public articulation and discussion of relevant evidence and issues by members of advisory committees can not be grounds for criticism or dismissal.” When scientific advice is rejected, the experts said, the reasons should be explained explicitly and publicly.
Drayson welcomed the suggestions. “I think what’s important now is that some good comes out of this. That means me working inside government to make sure that these points are understood, come out and very clearly reassure people. These principles that have been set out are a very helpful foundation.”
Among the ideas he will examine are the publication of all scientific advice, regardless of whether the government decides to follow it, and setting up an independent press office for science advisory committees to communicate their ideas directly to the public.
The minister will work with the signatories of the guidelines and the science advisory network in government, under chief scientist John Beddington, to come up with a clear set of “rules of engagement” by Christmas. “This incident has highlighted that people are not as clear as they need to be and that lack of clarity is on both sides.”
He said scientists also had to change some of their views of government. “A small number of scientists have gone on the record in the past few days and said the government has to take scientific advice. Well, with respect, it doesn’t. Government has to get the best possible scientific advice it can and then government needs to reflect carefully on that advice, then it is the role of ministers to make the decisions. What they have to do is explain why they have made those decisions. And, if it differs from the advice they’ve been given, to explain why.”
=======================
英 과학자단, 정부 개입 반발 확산
연합뉴스 2009/11/07 09:47 송고
(런던 AP=연합뉴스) 과학자들의 의견이 정부 정책과 어긋나는 경우에도 이들의 연구 성과와 권고 사항은 공개적으로 자유롭게 논의돼야 한다고 영국 과학자들이 6일 촉구했다.
정부 식품 안전 자문위원인 독물학자 앨런 부비스 교수 등 영국 최고의 과학자 28명은 정부에 보낸 공개서한에서 정부 개입으로부터의 자유와 공개적인 연구 결과 논의, 그리고 권고사항을 밝힐 자유 등 일련의 원칙에 동의해 줄 것을 요구했다.
영국 정부는 이에 대한 입장을 마련 중이라고 밝혔다.
과학자들의 공개서한은 지난주 정부 약물정책 자문위원장인 데이비드 너트 교수가 “정부가 마리화나의 위험을 과장하고 있다”면서 “마리화나는 알코올보다 덜 위험한 약물”이라고 주장한 뒤 해임된데 따른 직접적인 반응이다.
영국 정부는 약물과 질병, 환경 등 75개 분야의 위원회에서 과학자들에게 자문하고 있는데 최근 정부가 약물 오남용 자문위원회의 자문 내용을 무시하고 마리화나 소지와 관련된 처벌을 강화하면서 논란을 빚고 있다.
약물위원회는 마리화나에 관한 과학 연구가 아직 불분명해 위험을 무릅쓸 단계가 아니라는 논리를 폈으며 고든 브라운 총리는 고급품 마리화나가 시중에 나도는 것을 “명을 재촉하는 일”이라고 표현했다.
너트 교수는 해임된 직후 브라운 총리의 발언은 “완전히 비이성적”이라고 비난하면서 “대마초 같은 약물의 독성에 관해 대중을 오도하기 싫다”는 입장을 밝혔으며 이후 두 명의 자문위원이 그의 입장에 동조해 동반 사퇴했다.
한편 미국 케임브리지에 본부를 둔 `걱정하는 과학자들의 모임(UCS)’의 한 관계자는 “정치와 과학이 충돌하는 경우는 드물지 않다. 그러나 과학자들은 자유롭게 말할 수 있어야 한다”는 입장을 밝혔다.
youngnim@yna.co.kr
