This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/sci/tech/8340318.stm

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Science chief backs cannabis view Science chief backs cannabis view
(31 minutes later)
The UK government's chief science adviser has told BBC News that he supports the former chief drugs adviser's scientific view on cannabis.The UK government's chief science adviser has told BBC News that he supports the former chief drugs adviser's scientific view on cannabis.
Professor John Beddington, the UK's chief scientist, would not be drawn on whether the Home Secretary was wrong to sack Professor David Nutt.Professor John Beddington, the UK's chief scientist, would not be drawn on whether the Home Secretary was wrong to sack Professor David Nutt.
Prof Nutt was chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD).Prof Nutt was chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD).
He was fired after using a lecture to say cannabis was less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.He was fired after using a lecture to say cannabis was less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.
Asked whether he agreed with Prof Nutt's view that cannabis was less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol, Prof Beddington replied: "I think the scientific evidence is absolutely clear cut. I would agree with it."Asked whether he agreed with Prof Nutt's view that cannabis was less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol, Prof Beddington replied: "I think the scientific evidence is absolutely clear cut. I would agree with it."
Professor Beddington is the man ultimately responsible for scientific advice in government.Professor Beddington is the man ultimately responsible for scientific advice in government.
He said that he believed that the sacking had occurred because of a breakdown in trust between Professor Nutt and the Home Secretary Alan Johnson.He said that he believed that the sacking had occurred because of a breakdown in trust between Professor Nutt and the Home Secretary Alan Johnson.
"I think it's very difficult - when clearly trust had broken down between the Home Secretary and Professor Nutt - to see how that could go on," he told BBC News."I think it's very difficult - when clearly trust had broken down between the Home Secretary and Professor Nutt - to see how that could go on," he told BBC News.
He stressed the importance placed by government on obtaining clear-cut scientific advice from experts.He stressed the importance placed by government on obtaining clear-cut scientific advice from experts.
He added: "I think it's fair to say we need to make a distinction between scientific advice and evidence - which is the role of experts and scientific committees and the role of ministers - which is to make policy."He added: "I think it's fair to say we need to make a distinction between scientific advice and evidence - which is the role of experts and scientific committees and the role of ministers - which is to make policy."
He said he did not believe that the incident revealed an underlying problem in the way government used scientific advice.He said he did not believe that the incident revealed an underlying problem in the way government used scientific advice.
"There has been a lot of concern in the media that this is in some sense an undermining of the way in which government uses scientific advice. Let me put it in context: there are more than 75 scientific advisory committees," he said."There has been a lot of concern in the media that this is in some sense an undermining of the way in which government uses scientific advice. Let me put it in context: there are more than 75 scientific advisory committees," he said.
"This is a single instance where there has been a problem. In my two years in government there has only been an instance with the ACMD.""This is a single instance where there has been a problem. In my two years in government there has only been an instance with the ACMD."
But Professor Beddington said that he would urgently consult with other heads of expert committees to see if they had experienced difficulties in their role.But Professor Beddington said that he would urgently consult with other heads of expert committees to see if they had experienced difficulties in their role.
But some senior scientists who advise government do feel that the Nutt affair is reflective of the inner workings of scientific advice in Whitehall.
Many of the advisers I spoke to felt that their committees produce reports whose conclusions are inadequately reported because the publicity is tightly controlled by government press officers. These advisers did not want to be quoted.