Scintilla

The government will produce guidelines on the independence of its scientific advisers, Science Minister Lord Drayson says.

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

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."

Lord Drayson, the UK science minister, has thrown his weight behind a set of demands from the government’s independent advisors which were drawn up in the wake of the controversial sacking of drugs advisor David Nutt.

In an interview with Nature, Drayson also admitted there were concerns among government advisors that pre-date ‘Nutt-gate’. He said at recent meetings “a number of leading scientific advisors across different fields ... expressed to me some underlying concerns”.

“Not a huge concern, bubbling, but it was not just about advice relating to drugs classification,” says Drayson. “What’s happened over the last few days is that sort of bubbling concern has turned into very serious concern because of the events that have taken place.”

Drayson also confirmed the veracity of an email leaked to the Sun newspaper, in which he apparently said he was “pretty appalled” and that the Home Secretary’s decision to sack Nutt was “a big mistake” (see: Cracks show in government over Nutt-gate).

“I can confirm that was an email that I wrote and it reflects how I felt at that point,” he told Nature today. “I learnt about it through a Google Alert, which is not a great way to learn about it.”

An inquiry into the leak – which Drayson says “absolutely was not leaked from my end” – is now underway.

However, Drayson insists that good can still come of the whole affair. He says he backs a set of Principles for the Treatment of Independent Scientific Advice, drawn up by other advisors and leading scientists (see: Home Secretary under fire over ‘Nutt-gate’).

“What I want to do is to be in a position to be able to come out and reassure the scientific community which I know has been very seriously concerned about all this, that the government takes the independence of scientific advice very seriously indeed,” he says.

“I think the principles which were set out yesterday, did provide a very good framework, a starting point, to allow us to confirm these things. I think they reflect a number of things which were in the code of conduct. What I want to do now is … come up with a way of implementing these principles.”

A second government adviser has quit in protest at the home secretary's sacking of chief drugs adviser Prof David Nutt.