Guidelines to protect expert HIV advice
posted: 10/11/2009
Expert independent HIV advice to the government should be on a firmer foundation from Christmas. Faith in how the government treats all the scientific advice it asks for and is given, including HIV advice, was rocked when the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, sacked the chair of the independent Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
Scientists, HIV experts and others asked themselves - what is the point of advising the government with the best scientific views, if that advice can be treated with contempt and the government also then shoots the messenger?
Guidelines by Christmas
Now 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, MPs and commentators, over the sacking of the independent chair for drugs advice, David Nutt.
A bit of sacking background
Home Secretary Alan Johson sacked Professor Nutt after he overrruled the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs' advice and made cannabis crimes more serious by moving cannabis from grade C to grade B. Nutt is an academic professor who writes articles in academic journals and gives lectures. Johnson stamped his foot like a toddler when Nutt carried on giving the same advice in an article and lecture, and sacked him, claiming academic articles and lectures are 'campaigning' against government policy. Most people can see this for what it was - a professor doing his job and asserting the truth of independent scientific advice. This sacking was not Johnson's finest political moment - perhaps he felt threatened because his explanation for rejecting the panel's scientific advice was so weak.
"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."
Smoothing ruffled scientific feathers
Science minister Drayson was in Japan last week when Professor 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 how the government can undo the collapse in confidence it has caused in providing government with scientific advice.
The science minister's first 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 now issued by senior scientists to keep scientific advice free from political interference.
Science advice guidelines
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.
Dealing with disagreement with government
The guidelines argued that "disagreement with government policy and the public articulation and discussion of relevant evidence and issues by members of advisory committees cannot be grounds for criticism or dismissal." When scientific advice is rejected, the experts said, the reasons should be explained explicitly and publicly.
Drayson welcomed this. "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."
Other proposals to safeguard advice
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."
Government decides but must explain
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."
Protecting HIV advice
The department of health is advised on national HIV policy by the Expert Advisory Group on AIDS (EAGA), made up of some the country’s top HIV experts in community, health and social care organisations. It’s an advisory non-departmental public body which is non-statutory. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has a stronger position – it was set up by Parliament, so it cannot be abolished.
EAGA was established in 1985 with the following terms of reference: "To provide advice on such matters relating to HIV/AIDS as may be referred to it by the Chief Medical Officers of the Health Departments of the United Kingdom".
It publishes on the EAGA web-pages its agendas and meeting minutes and other material, such as recent advice on PEP (post-exposure prophylaxis - treatment with HIV drugs for one month, starting immediately after exposure to HIV, in order to prevent HIV infection).
More about the Draft Scientific Advice Guidelines
Source
Permalink