A question of policy

[andrewducker]

[Poll #1480150]

Note - by "public" here, I mean to people outside of the company, like journalists or similar, not openly to people inside of the company.

Comments

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

I've enjoyed both your and a_pawson's comments on this.

I'm part of a network for young career researchers and policy makers. There does seem to be a system of research feeds into policy, but does not necessarily dictate policy. Policy is in turn decided by MPs who are trying to do the right thing by the public, the research, the past, the current climate (and possibly their future votes).

It seems like most people are doing their best in a tricky situations. I think invoking change can be very difficult.

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's right. What I don't know, and haven't had the time to find out, is whether Nutt was saying 'research evidence shows that ecstasy is less dangerous than cigarettes, alcohol or horse riding' (hardly news; the first two are only legal due to historical precedent, and with the third we assume that sporting pursuits have benefits that outweigh their disadvantages, an accommodation we do not habitually make for recreational drugs), or 'Government policy is wrong-headed and I call for it to be changed', which is a bit of an odd stand for the chair of an advisory committee to take publicly.

[andrewducker]

The link to the publication from which the talks was made that akicif left in my latest post indicates that it was the former. I originally saw it portrayed in the media as the latter. Which explains where my confusion comes from. He doesn't seem to have crossed any lines at all, that I can see.

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

I've now read extracts (in the Guardian, which I found on a seat on the Victoria Line this evening) and he clearly overstepped the bounds. As other people have said, if you're on an advisory committee, you can speak freely in your private professional capacity, but you must state that you are not speaking as a member of the advisory committee. His lecture makes repeated reference to the work of the advisory committee and his role within it and it is entirely reasonable that people would interpret what he said as speaking in that capacity. Most of the content would be unexceptional if not for that, but there's also a patch in the lecture where he talks about the specious thinking of 'many people' and makes it clear that 'many people' includes politicians.

Should he have been forced to resign? A matter for the politicians I would think, though it doesn't appear to me that the issue is playing out particularly well for them at the moment.