The Home Secretary has now responded to my letter. It is set out below, interwoven with my original letter, and accompanied by comments from me, after consultation with Professor Nutt and Richard Garside (of CCJS at King’s College)
This is still all in the aftermath to Professor Nutt’s sacking by the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary’s subsequent Q&A sessions in the House of Commons.
Objection raised to Home Secretary
1. You stated in the chamber: “In February, while awaiting publication of the Government’s position on the classification of ecstasy, of which he was already aware, Professor Nutt published an article and addressed the media on the appropriateness or otherwise of the Government’s policy framework, expressing a view that horse riding was more dangerous than ecstasy.”
This is incorrect. A peer-reviewed journal – the Journal of Psychopharmacology – published the article (not Professor Nutt). It was in January 2009, not February as you stated. Professor Nutt wrote and submitted the article the previous year. It was reviewed prior to publication by two expert reviewers. Neither at the time of writing, nor at the date of publication of the article, was Professor Nutt aware of the Government’s position on the classification of ecstasy since the ACMD had not even published its report let alone received the Government’s response. Furthermore the content of the article was discussed with the ACMD secretariat (though he was not required by the Code of Practice to do so) and was discussed and approved in a conversation with Professor Nutt by Paul Wiles the Departmental Chief Science Advisor.
Response from Home Secretary
1. In relation to the publication of Professor Nutt’s paper in the Journal of Psychopharmacology. This was published by the journal but was authored solely by Professor Nutt. I accept that the journal may have been published in January, although its publication did not come to our attention until the beginning of February.
The paper was discussed with the ACMD secretariat and Professor Paul Wiles, Home Office Chief Scientific Advisor. However, neither the secretariat nor Professor Wiles approved the paper. It is not the role of the Chief Scientific Advisor of the Home Office, or indeed the ACMD secretariat to approve, or otherwise, the academic papers produced by independent academics.
Comment:
Home Secretary admits he had the date of publication wrong but does not address the consequential point that he was wrong to tell the House that Prof Nutt was aware of the Government’s response to the ACMD report on Ecstasy. Prof Nutt submitted his paper in November 2008, it was published in January (without press release, comment or fanfare), while the ACMD report was sent to the Government on 4th February and the Government’s response received on the 11th February, the same day as the report itself was published.
The Home Secretary is correct to say that there is no need for the Home Office CSA or the ACMD secretariat to approve (or in fact even be notified) of academic papers produced by independent academics. This concedes that this was a not a paper produced by Prof Nutt in his capacity as Chair of ACMD but in his capacity as an academic. There can be no valid objection to the publication of the paper itself. The objection by the Home Secretary and his predecessor can only have been on its content – which is a matter of academic freedom.
Conclusion:
a) The House was misled on the question of dates and of the knowledge of Prof Nutt of the Government’s response.
b) Prof Nutt’s academic freedom has been impinged by two Home Secretaries
Objection raised to Home Secretary
2. You stated in the chamber: “On Thursday 29th October Professor Nutt chose, without prior notification to my Department, to initiate a debate on drugs policy in the national media, returning to the February decisions and accusing my predecessor of distorting and devaluing scientific research”.
This is incorrect, as Richard Garside, Director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King’s College London has made clear. Professor Nutt delivered his lecture at King’s on 14th July 2009 to an audience of 150 people with no media. This was published by the CCJS on 29th October. As you know, there is no requirement on an independent scientific adviser to give prior notification of academic work to the ACMD secretariat in the Home Office in either the general or the ACMD code of practice. Nevertheless, Professor Nutt had indeed informed the secretariat of the paper and received feedback. Prof Nutt even discussed it with Paul Wiles, the Home Office Departmental Chief Scientific Adviser. In fact the Home Office publicised it in advance on their website here:
The official flyer for the event described Prof Nutt as Professor David Nutt, Edmond J Safra Chair in Neuropsychopharmacology and Head of the Department of Neuropsychopharmacology and Molecular Imaging at Imperial College London. It was only the Home Office advert that also described him as Chair of the ACMD.
Prof Nutt would not, of course, be banned from accusing Jacqui Smith of “distorting and devaluing scientific research” under the ACMD code of practice , but he did not. There are no references to Ms Smith in his lecture and only 3 to the “former Home Secretary” which are factual. The reference to “distorting” and “devaluing” in the lecture clearly refers to the use of the precautionary principle.
Response from Home Secretary
2. Regarding Professor Nutt’s paper at King’s College. Professor Nutt made the ACMD Secretariat and Professor Wiles aware of the presentation he made on 14 July and saw the slides that were to be used for the presentation. However, neither the secretariat nor Professor Wiles were made aware of the subsequent publication on 29 October, authored by Professor Nutt. Similarly, we were not aware of the article Professor Nutt wrote in the Guardian the following day (published on-line on 29 October).
You state that the official flyer for the event described Professor Nutt in his role at Imperial College. However, the website advertising the lecture also referred to Professor Nutt chairing the ACMD. Furthermore, David Nutt’s presentation, clearly used information that was part of his role in Chairing the ACMD and he referred to the Council as ‘we’ repeatedly during the presentation. Therefore, the impression could easily be given that Professor Nutt was speaking in his capacity of Chair of the ACMD, regardless of how the lecture was advertised.
Your letter states there were no references to Ms Smith in Professor Nutt’s lecture, but three references to the ‘former Home Secretary’. This is true, although Professor Nutt did refer to the former Home Secretary, alongside quotes from Jacqui Smith in the paper, so it is clear to whom he is referring. In addition, Professor Nutt’s Guardian article and Press Release for the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies paper both mention Jacqui Smith by name. These criticise her stance on cannabis being to ‘err on the side of caution’. This is the explanation of why the Government rejected the ACMD’s advice on cannabis, in that it is not prepared to risk the health of our young people. Professor Nutt’s paper, on page 8, criticises this stance as to ‘devalue the evidence’. I completely refute the fact that erring on the side of caution to protect the health of our young people in anyway devalues or distorts the evidence – we make decisions in the full confidence that they will protect the public.
Comment:
The Slides for the presentation on the 14th July were actually prepared with the ACMD secretariat.
The paper published on 29th October was a translation of the transcript of the lecture, attended by the ACMD secretariat (Will Reynolds and Ian Williams), with some of the slides used as illustrations. It was published on 29th October by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies as is usual with this lecture series and press release was produced by them. It is not required by the Code of Practice for Prof Nutt to provide prior notification or approval of the Home Office for papers produced by others based on a lecture itself notified to the Home Office and produced with their assistance.
If a “debate on drugs policy was initiated” by Professor Nutt, it was initiated in his lecture on 14th July not by the publication by a third party of that lecture three months later.
The article in the Guardian was – as it states – an edited version of the paper which is in turn based on the transcript of the lecture.
Prof Nutt was described in the flyer for the lecture and in the paper as Edmond J Safra Chair in Neuropsychopharmacology and Head of the Department of Neuropsychopharmacology and Molecular Imaging at Imperial College London. Any reference to his chairing the ACMD was biographical. This role was prominent only in the Home Office’s own advert – a point not addressed by the Home Secretary.
Richard Garside (Director of the CCJS at King’s College) says:
“We were very clear in (1) the original event flyer and material; (2) the press release; and (3) the published version of the speech that Professor Nutt was contributing in his academic capacity. It is as simple as that. The reference to Professor Nutt’s ACMD role were biographical and contextual on the website page the Home Secretary refers to (I assume it is http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/evesavillelecture.html ). There was a similar biographical reference in the notes to editors in the press release. It is therefore simply false to claim that the impression was ‘easily given’ that he was speaking in his capacity as ACMD chair.
We also went to lengths on the day of publication to ensure that David Nutt was not interpreted as speaking for the ACMD. The Guardian article, for instance, was edited down from David’s briefing by Matt Seaton, the Comment Editor. I signed it off on behalf of David. In the original draft that Matt did, the second paragraph started: ‘The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), on which I serve, was requested by the Home Secretary…’. I asked Matt to remove ‘on which I serve’ to avoid misunderstanding about the capacity in which David was writing. Likewise in the third para from the end, a reference to and ACMD report that Matt described as ‘our report’ was corrected to ‘the ACMD’s report’.
We therefore went to some lengths to be clear about the capacity in which David was speaking and writing. It might be possible for individuals to conclude that he was speaking in his ACMD role. CCJS and David Nutt can’t be held responsible for others misinterpreting what we published or David Nutt spoke or wrote.”
In the paper and in the lecture, the use of “we” in respect of the ACMD was only in relation to factual matters about the work that the ACMD had carried out; the rest of lecture set out his own views or those of his co-authors of the Lancet paper. Any perusal of the Paper or viewing of the slides will not provide support for the idea that Prof Nutt was speaking in his role as Chair of the ACMD.
By the Home Secretary’s standards a member of the ACMD will always be speaking in their ACMD role, when they speak on matters relating to illegal drugs and their classification.
The Home Secretary enters a debate about the value of erring on the side of caution which is of academic interest but of no relevance as to whether Prof Nutt is entitled to criticise what he considers to be an over-precautionary approach. In his paper Prof Nutt does criticise indirectly the previous Home Secretary’s approach, and the press release from CCJS which summaruises the paper, criticises that approach more directly. Neither accuses the previous Home Secretary of “distorting and devaluing scientific research”. The Home Secretary admits that the most the paper does (on page 8 ) is to criticise the stance adopted by the Home Secretary as to “devalue the evidence”.
Conclusions
a. Prof Nutt did not speak at the CCJS lecture as Chair of the ACMD, nor did he advertise himself as so doing, or give that impression. Therefore he was under no obligation to notify the Home Office – although he did.
b. Contrary to what the Home Secretary told the House, Prof Nutt did provide prior notification to the Home Office of his paper even though he was under no obligation to do so.
c. Prof Nutt was entitled to criticise the former Home Secretary of “distorting and devaluing scientific research” as the Home Secretary accused him of doing, if he wished to do so, but in fact his criticism was that her policy served to “devalue the evidence”. So the House was misled by the Home Secretary on this point.
Objection raised to Home Secretary
3. You stated that the former Home Secretary – Jacqui Smith- had protested to Professor Nutt concerning the comparison in the Journal of Psychopharmacology article of the risks of ecstasy with the risks of horse-riding. You then went on: “In relation to the latest event, that behaviour has happened again. Professor Nutt is a man whom I respect, and he is very learned in his field, but, much to my regret, he published a paper without any notification to my Department, contrary to the code of practice under which he was appointed”.
This is incorrect. There was no evidence at the time or now that any of those events involved a breach of the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees or the ACMD by Prof Nutt, and this is reinforced by the fact that neither Home Secretary in either of their letters to him has made this allegation, and nor did you raise it in your recent and only meeting with Prof Nutt. Yet if this allegation were made outside the House, it would be actionable given the slur on Professor Nutt’s reputation.
Response from Home Secretary
3. I refer to my answer to the point above with regard to publishing both the King’s College, paper and the Guardian article. You state that this did not breach the ACMD’s Code of Practice. Can I refer you to paragraph 48 of the ACMD’s Code, which states, ‘Any media appearances that members have been asked to undertake on behalf of the ACMD, or which specifically cover the work of the ACMD should be reported beforehand to the Secretariat.
Comment
It is very clear from David Nutt’s paper and his media interviews on 29th and 30th October that he was not undertaking media appearances ’on behalf of the ACMD’ nor were his media appearances ’specifically’ to ‘cover the work of the ACMD’. He was undertaking media appearances to present his thinking, first set out in a presentation the Home Office helped to produce and indicated it had no problem with, to a wider audience, as an independent academic.
Conclusion
a. There was prior notification of the paper based on the lecture that the Home Office helped to prepare and House was misled.
b. There was no breach of the Code of Practice and the House was misled
Objection raised to Home Secretary
4. You stated: “Our principal advisers—whether Sir David King, John Beddington, Sir Liam Donaldson or Professor Nutt—have to be clear that when they are appointed to such a crucial and privileged job—When such esteemed professionals take on such a job, they have the Government’s ear. They have a very important role in influencing the Government, and they must exercise it with care and caution. It would be quite wrong for advisers to undermine the Government as well as advise them.”
Professor Nutt is not a full-time Government or Departmental Chief Science Adviser within the civil service, but an unpaid part-time adviser paid as an academic. You confuse the two roles. Nor has Prof Nutt campaigned against Government policy. One academic paper and one lecture in one’s area of expertise do not constitute a campaign, especially as both the paper and the lecture were notified to the ACMD secretariat and beyond in the Home Office and the content discussed and approved.
Response from Home Secretary
4. In your letter you accuse me of confusing roles. I am in no way confused about the role Professor Nutt held. He was chair of my advisory committee and chose to campaign against decisions my predecessor had taken, not just through a lecture and a paper but through a series of media appearances, an article and a press release. Although, as stated above, the lecture was notified to the secretariat in June, the paper and the Guardian article in October were not.
Comment
The Home Secretary does not explain why he compared Prof Nutt’s role as an unpaid independent scientific adviser to that of paid civil servants working for the Government.
The Home Secretary considers that a lecture (prepared with the help of Home Office staff) and a paper based on it, advertised as being in an academic role, together with a press article on the same subject and a third party press release summarising the same represents a campaign.
Conclusion
On this basis the Home Secretary would consider any academic lecture or paper which disagreed with Government policy and was reported in the media to be a campaign against policy decisions and seeking to undermine the Government. This is paranoid control freakery.
Objection raised to Home Secretary
5. You stated: “My final point is about what Professor Nutt did last week at King’s college; incidentally, he was opposed by Professor Robin Murray, the head of psychiatric research, who takes a completely different view.”
This is incorrect. As we saw above, the King’s College event was four months ago not last week. Professor Robin Murray was not there.
Response from Home Secretary
5. Professor Robin Murray did, indeed, oppose Professor Nutt’s comments. These were made in the Guardian on 30 October and Professor Murray does take a different view on cannabis to Professor Nutt.
Comment
The Home Secretary does not deal the error he made I talking about an event at King’s College “last week”, when the lecture took place in July. He does not admit he was wrong to suggest that Prof Murray was present at the lecture speaking against Prof Nutt.
Conclusion
The House was misled.
Overall conclusions
There is no good evidence or argument that Prof Nutt breached the Code of Practice and indeed there are good grounds for recognising that he went to considerable lengths – beyond those required – to inform the Home Office at a senior level of his paper and his lecture, and to make clear the capacity in which he was speaking or writing.
He was therefore unfairly treated by being accused of breaches of the code and of “campaigning” and therefore unfairly dismissed.
The Home Secretary then compounded this by making misleading or wrong statements in Parliament and not correcting the record when these were pointed out to him.
Prepared by Dr Evan Harris MP in consultation with Prof D. Nutt and Mr R. Garside
