Why everyone was wrong about David Nutt

I've published two pieces today on the David Nutt affair, a long one in Prospect and a short one in Research Fortnight (both paid-for sites). Both run counter to the general flow of opinion from the scientific world in that I think Nutt-ism is the problem not the solution - and, I argue, in a tragic twist, those who are keenest to champion the cause of evidence-based policy have actually done it the greatest damage in this affair.

The core of the argument, as explained in detail in Prospect, is that:

* Nutt has framed his dismissal as a conflict between politics and science

* This frame has been adopted uncritically by most of the media and scientific community

* But science does not really say nearly as much about the classification of drugs as Nutt suggests it does

* Nutt's failure to clarify the distinction between what the evidence does and doesn't say has undermined the role of all scientists advising government, and the cause of evidence-based policy in general

* To back Nutt in this dispute ostensibly because he is standing up for science is at best a gross mistake, and at worst a closing of ranks by scientists around one of their own.

In the Prospect article I look at the general consequences of this; in Research Fortnight I look at the specific issues it raises for the scientific community. Here, I'm briefly going to tackle the media issues.

The general problem of the uncritical acceptance by the media of the frame that Nutt provided them with troubles me. It is not a case of journalists misreporting what scientists tell them; it is a case of journalists failing to question what they have been told by a scientist. How bad the reporting has been is exemplified  by the misleading way Colin Blakemore was presented in this story (for which, I should add, I see no reason to blame him).

Blakemore has appeared widely in the media. His role in the story has generally been to buttress the idea that there is some kind of general problem between science and politics that the Nutt affair exemplifies. But - and it's a huge but - he is not an independent figure in this. In fact, he is a co-author with Nutt of the key Lancet paper that Nutt cites when arguing that his views on classification are "scientific".

Unfortunately, you would never have guessed that from the coverage in the media. I'm only going to bother listing here a few samples, mainly from journalists and media I generally admire - there have been many more. So here's a brief list of a few of those who got it wrong:

Justin Webb on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4

Jermey Paxman in a Newsnight debate on BBC2 on 2 November

Nature

Bloomberg

Mirror

Telegraph.

How could so many good journalists get it so wrong?

Comments

[Steve Rolles]

"* But science does not really say nearly as much about the classification of drugs as Nutt suggests it does"

what does this mean? 'Science' doesn't say anything. There is a variety of published research and analysis on these issues - debated in a range of published and public forums.

"Nutt's failure to clarify the distinction between what the evidence does and doesn't say"

if you read the published ACMD reports, and the Nutt/Blakemore Lancet paper they are all very clear about the shortcomings and limits of both data and analysis

On the Nutt/Blakemore non-point; the paper has widely been referred to as the 'Nutt Blakemore' paper (which if anything is a bit of a disservice to the two other authors), and Blakemore - an important figure in his own right - has naturally been very prominent in the public debate on this issue as a result. Others who take a different view, including Robin Murray - of whom no mention as it doesnt fit your narrative - have been equally prominent. So your doing exactly what you accuse *them* of.

Sorry, but If you had half a point here you've lost it in your rush to be oh-so contrarian.

[William Cullerne Bown]

1. To say science doesnt say anything about this is obtuse. The first job of a scientific adviser is to clarify what it does and doesnt tell us.

2. Im not disputing whats in the ACMD report and the Lancet paper. If Nutt had stuck to that, I would have nothing to complain about. But then he wouldnt have been able to say this was a dispute between science and politics.

3. Robin Murray hasnt been as prominent as Blakemore, not nearly so.

4. Its obviously not a secret that Nutt and Blakemore co-authored the paper - except if you get your news from the BBC or any of the other mainstream media.

The Blakemore point is one of journalistic ethics and Id be stunned if any of the journalists involved really wanted to argue they played fair with their audience.

[William Cullerne Bown]

5. Dont you think you should have told us you are the Transform Drugs Policy Foundation?

[Chemobrain.wordpress.com]

@WCB

Try hovering your cursor over his name using your mouse.

[William Cullerne Bown]

Thanks. BTW this is also being discussed at Bad Science, http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=12881&p=268822#p268822

[Steve Rolles]

William:

Jacqui Smith said nothing about the equasy paper (which i didn't think was very good actually, but thats another story) until the Telegraph splashed it and all the other media weighed in - at which point she demanded a public apology (for a paper published by Nutt in a peer reviewed journal in his capacity as a drug practitioner and academic). politics or science?

Likewise the Government did not sack Nutt when he published the Lancet paper in 2007, nor gave the lecture (which he actually discussed with the home office - even receiving assistance on) - they sacked him when the media picked up on the lecture transcript publication and repeated his findings.

This was therefore clearly not about the findings/analysis itself , but the media coverage of the findings/analysis which ran contrary to, and undermined the Government's political programme built around the simplistic message that: drugs are a threat/bad therefore we must fight/prohibit them. This quasi-religious conceptualisation of drug policy requires that the threat/danger of drugs be endlessly hyped to provide justification for the 'war' on them, and any dissent from this posture is inherently politically risky.

Yes, Nutt criticised the government over their treatment of the classification question - but recall that as well as the equasy fracas, the government had said in advance of the ACMD ecstasy inquiry (that included a systematic review of everything ever published - some 4000 papers - producing a peerless 420 page report that was also very clear of the data deficiencies - reflected in its conclusions) that it would not reclassify ecstasy regardless of the evidence. Science or politics?

Recall also that after Gordon Brown ordered the third ACMD cannabis harm review in 7 years (itself a ridiculous waste of the committees voluntarily given expertise) he made multiple public pronouncements that he planned to upgrade to B before receiving the report. Politics or science?

In this context i think it was entirely appropriate for Nutt
to criticise the government, indeed i think it was his responsibility, either personally or as ACMD chair. Saying that they devalued the commitees findings and distorted the evidence they were presented was entirely correct. Gordon Browns public utterances about 'lethal skunk' - politics or science.

The Nutt Blakemore paper is not beyond criticism - I have critiqued it and tried to put it in the wider context here: http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2007/03/lancet-and-drug-harms-missing-bigger.html
and also suggested some conceptual improvements to harm rankings in the new Transform book:
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blueprint%20download.htm

But that sort of debate and discussion is, of course, what science should be about. Remember that before the Nutt Blakemore paper we had nothing at all. The nominally harm based rankings, screaming anomalies and all, based on UN scheduling decisions from the 1950s. Knowledge and understanding can only progress in small steps, in this case painfully slowly but hopefully in the right direction.

PS - my name and link are in the post.