I've been following with interest the story of Professour David Nutt.

You can find plenty about it in the press but for those who don't want to read it all the facts are briefly this. He was an advisor on drugs for the Government. He produced reports that, among other things, suggested that cannabis should be downgraded, compared the dangers of taking ecstasy with the dangers of horse-riding, and said that cannabis, ecstasy and LSD are all less harmful than either tobacco or alcohol.
He was then asked to stand down by the home secretary.

I'm less interested in his findings than in the language some have publicly used to criticise the Government for their actions.
First of all what exactly is "advice"? The critics seem to be of the opinion that if you ask someone (or even pay someone) to advise you then you are somehow wrong if you choose not to take their advice. This is ridiculous. I can ask ten people for advice and get ten different answers, some will have to be ignored. Advice is a suggestion, an opinion - not something that is binding.

The second bit of linguistic jiggery-pokery is in the way that they have constantly linked his "sacking" with his "advice". As I saw the story he was asked to resign not because the Government didn't like his advice but because after they said they wouldn't be taking it he suddenly started popping up all over the TV criticising this decision and saying how they were ignoring the truth and devaluing science for political ends.
This may or may not be true but it isn't the position of an allegedly independent advisor to say so, especially not so publicly.

To summarise - advice is something that can be taken or not, and he was sacked for criticising his employer not for giving advice they didn't like.

I agree. Typical example of political forked tongue. A public debate among experts and policy-makers on the merits of the professor's claims-- now THAT would have been informative (not to mention more interesting).

But we don't get much of that in government anymore, do we? (Or did we ever?) Small wonder we're all so cynical, understanding as we do that most of what gets trumpeted about has already been vetted & approved-- word by word-- by the powers that be.

quote:

First of all what exactly is "advice"? The critics seem to be of the opinion that if you ask someone (or even pay someone) to advise you then you are somehow wrong if you choose not to take their advice. This is ridiculous. I can ask ten people for advice and get ten different answers, some will have to be ignored. Advice is a suggestion, an opinion - not something that is binding.

I suggest that there is a significant difference between the advice you might get from your random selection of people than that from an expert. Advice is something that just about everyone is happy to give - the more so if any action taken as a result of that advice will not affect the adviser.

But advice from an expert whose job it is to study a topic and advise on that topic is very different. Of course, not every piece of advice can be taken, but to dismiss the advice of a drugs expert and act, instead, on the uninformed opinion of politicians (all of who, of course, know about nothing except politics) is surely unwise.

And the political opinions (as opposed to scientific ones) expressed so vociferously in the last week by Professor Nutt, are, I would suggest, equally uninformed. His opinions on the relative safety levels of various drugs may have a basis (though other scientists disagree with him) but the Government policy is based on other factors as well, social impact, levels of criminality, prevailing moral attitudes and, of course, what the public will vote for.

However the main thrust of my point was that the Government (and believe me I have no love for the current lot) should not be criticised on the basis that they failed to take advice they had paid for. Advice is advice. Even when given by an expert that advice has to be weighed against all the factors before being accepted or rejected.

I see your point, Bob, though in some ways I agree with Richard. If you hire someone as an "advisor" to study a topic, that is very different. This particular guy seems not up to the job and needed sacking, as it doesn't seem to me that he is basing his "advice" on the best evidence. However, I think advice from a hired authority should, in most cases, at least be strongly considered.

It almost made me think there should be two words for "advice." One meaning that normal, every day advice that friends or acquaintances give, and the other being advice from authorities.

[As I read this post, I wondered what our Jerry would have thought of this advisor. ]

One problem with analysing this situation is that I do not know the limits of Nutt's brief. Was he supposed only to advise about the toxicity of various drugs or was he also supposed to make recommendations as to their availability and/or legality? The terms of his brief are important.

Incidentally, in case it hasn't made US news, this one looks to run and run. Other advisers have now resigned in support of Professor Nutt.

They have just been discussing it on TV (on an admittedly low-brow program) but are still insisting on conflating the two issues of rejecting the advice and sacking the advisor.

I'll say again, when you seek advice you are free to take it or reject it - even if you are a government who paid for it.

And he wasn't sacked for his advice he was sacked for publicly badmouthing his employer - something that would get most of us sacked.

I saw a couple of reports on the BBC's Breakfast programme. They made it clear that the reason Nutt was sacked was that he was actively campaigning against the government's decision not to take his advice. The matter of whether the advice was good or bad, or whether the government should have taken it, was not touched upon at all. I also see that two of Prof. Nutt's colleagues have resigned in sympathy.

Prof. Nutt should count himself lucky that he was only sacked. Remember Dr David Kelly a few years ago, who came out against the Government's dossier on Iraq's WMDs? He ended up dead in decidedly suspicious circumstances...

quote:

I'll say again, when you seek advice you are free to take it or reject it - even if you are a government who paid for it.

Of course. And when you receive conflicting advice then you have no option but to reject one or more of the pieces of advice.

And I will say again - there is a great deal of difference between the uninformed advice that we all receive ad nauseam whether we seek it or not, and advice that is sought from experts in a field.

Professor Nutt's paper, Equasy—An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms, comparing the dangers of ecstasy and equasy (i.e., horse riding) is available online (link) as a PDF.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

Wouldn't it better to refer to the information sought as "options" instead of "advice"? People expect you to choose among options but almost always feel rejected when their "advice" is not followed.

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
Professor Nutt's paper, Equasy—An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms, comparing the dangers of ecstasy and equasy (i.e., horse riding) is available online (link) as a PDF.

I read the 1st few pages. I am going to venture into inadvisable territory with a commentary.

Professor Nutt's paper raises fascinating questions worthy of consideration. I respect him for taking advantage of his brief moment in the sun to shoehorn in his refreshingly left-field perspective. Possibly a second look will be taken at his reasoning by policy-makers who would otherwise never have given it 2 seconds. Social change proceeds only by inches, and not at all if nobody reads your paper.

However, that said. If you get close to the seat of power and publish this, you'll be canned! In typically nerdy-scientist fashion, it is pure reasoning, cruelly free of social context-- utterly tactless, in-your-face to policy-makers, insulting to anyone who's had any personal fallout from "use/misuse of drugs" in their lives as have had I'll wager every second citizen.

On the basis of my lazily brief review I'm guessing this guy would have to go one way or another, even if he'd smiled & air-kissed when they decided not to take his advice/ options/ whatever.

Nicely said, bethree.

It is these times when I miss Jerry's perspective.