UKCAF website

In the country of the blind . . .

It is madness to allow scientifically illiterate
politicians to dictate the health
of the nation.

Doug Cross, 6th November 2009

When politicians ask for scientific guidance in a field of which they have absolutely no professional credibility, it is reasonable to expect them to choose carefully whom they ask for that advice. But it is surely equally reasonable to expect them then to accept the advice of the chosen experts, once it has been offered.

When politicians reject expert scientific advice merely because it is not politically acceptable, their actions mark them as fools. Yet in Mr Brown’s Britain a great deal of expert advice is now routinely brushed aside by senior politicians, especially in the field of public health. The clear impression is that the Government is more concerned about upholding its often shaky policies than about the harm its own obstinacy may cause to the public.

‘Evidence based’ policy making -

Last week, Home Secretary Alan Johnson insulted professional scientists by summarily dismissing Professor David Nutt from his post as Chairman of the Government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Professor Nutt had committed the unpardonable offence of expressing his own opinion that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or nicotine. It should not, he said, be reclassified for purely political reasons and against the best available scientific evidence. For those familiar with the authoritarian temperament of this Government, the result was entirely predictable.

A shot in the foot - Johnson’s bullying back-fires

If the Home Secretary expected Professor Nutt to go quietly, then he was seriously deluded. Predictably, a few snivelling yes-men endorsed the Home Secretary’s intemperate decision as he attempted to justify his impetuous action on television news programmes and in the House of Commons.

But amongst the general public, and in the wider scientific community, his arogant bluster backfired badly. The public took a very dim view of his bullying, and watched with satisfaction as Professor Nutt rejected Johnson’s rhetoric with authority and contempt. Other Members of the Advisory Council have already announced their resignations, refusing to serve on a Council in which scientifically qualified Members are already in a minority.

Announcing his own resignation from the Council, Dr Les King, former Head of the Drugs Intelligence Unit of the Forensic Science Service, commented that Home Secretaries now appear to have a “pre-defined political agenda” when they ask for expert advice.

Unqualified for the job

Indeed they do, as those who object to the Government’s policy on the use of the unlicensed drug fluoride will be well aware. Mr Johnson is not noted for his expertise in science, having absolutely no academic qualifications in medicine, or indeed, any other relevant discipline other than the knock-about world of Union politics.

For at least six million Britons, fluorosilicic acid used to fluoridate drinking water supplies is an unavoidable drug that the government’s sycophantic medicines regulator, the MHRA, refuses to even recognise, let alone reclassify and control. Yet as the former Secretary of State for Health, Johnson enthusiastically endorsed the disreputable practice of water fluoridation last year’s Annual Conference of the National Fluoride Information Centre, (NFIC) at Manchester University.

Unfortunately, Mr Johnson was unaware that the NFIC was, and remains, a political scam. Its sole aim is to provide propaganda on an irrational political policy in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is both scientifically fraudulent and legally improper. His record on refusing to regulate the illegal drug fluoride is entirely consistent with his latest refusal to take expert advice on other illegal drugs such as cannabis.

This inconsistent and improper attitude to drug regulation remains a serious ethical and legal problem. His successor as Secretary of State for Health, Andy Burnham MP, is also innocent of scientific qualifications, and has an equally uninformed approach to drug regulation. At this year’s NHS Federation Conference, also at Manchester University, he too endorsed water fluoridation.

He even encouraged NHS staff to ignore the absence of public consent and press ahead with imposing the unlicensed medical practice of water fluoridation on the public. Like his predecessor, Mr Burnham stubbornly attempts to enforce irrational Government health policy on the use of this illegal drug in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that it is deeply flawed.

In the public interest, or of interest to the public?

Ultimately the purpose of scientific consultation is to protect the public from the ill-informed dogma and ridiculous whims of politicians. On occasion, it is entirely justifiable for a scientist to take appropriate measures to challenge irrational decisions by those who solicit their guidance, and I have myself blown the whistle on political interference when the Establishment has attempted to suppress evidence of ris to the public, and dismissed reputable scientific advice.

Such subversive actions are regarded as not being ‘in the public interest’. But in the eyes of the people such unilateral actions are certainly of direct interest to the public. When fluoridation fanatics in the NHS lied to the Southampton City Council over the supposed poor state of the city’s children’s teeth, concerted action by the scientific community to expose the fraud was the only possible response.

The decision to subject the charade of the ‘public consultation’ over fluoridation in Southampton to Judicial Review was an enormous shock to the pro-fluoride activists. It hit the entire Department of Health band-wagon a fatal blow, halting it dead in its tracks. as a result of the public fury over the lies on which the City’s softening-up process was founded, no-one now seriously believes that the Health Authority will dare to attempt yet another public consultation.

Fluoridation advocates in Southampton - and a number of other cities waiting on the Judge’s decision - have been forced to abandon their plans for expanding the areas of England that were to be dosed with this poisoned chalice. As far as any new schemes are concerned, the policy is effectively dead in the water, even if the scientifically illiterate politicians supporting it remain blissfully unaware of the collapse of public support for their futile ambitions.

Suppression of evidence and opinion

As Professor Nutt discovered last week, dissenting opinion - even when based on the most reliable evidence available - is still vigorously suppressed. Those who dare to stand up against this moral corruption are deliberately vilified and subjected to personal and professional pressures.

Government advisers are now subject to careful political scrutiny before appointment. Any who do slip through the screen and express dissent are instantly labelled as ‘activists’ or, like the Professor, absurdly accused of ‘campaigning’.

The policy of selecting advisers who can be relied on to give the politcally correct advice has at last been exposed to full public view, yet still senior members of government express horror at the thought that their advisers should have ‘strong personal opinions’.

Only two weeks ago Sir Liam Donaldson, England’s Chief Medical Officer and the Government’s senior advisor on health matters, dismissed those who have genuine concerns and speak out against the Government’s mass swine flu vaccination campaign as “extremists”. Presumably, as far as this crumbling Government is concerned, pliability is still more important than firm opinion based on real expertise.

A crisis of confidence

Mr. Johnson’s peremptory dismissal of Professor Nutt has precipitated a crisis of confidence in science, and expert scientists now talk openly of refusing to serve on Government advisory panels if their advice is just going to be ignored.

David Nutt summarised the feelings of many professional scientists and the public in general when he said ‘We need an independent scientific committee, to stop politicians meddling around with the health of society.’ Many professionals agree.

Ruling by dictat, not wisdom and common sense.

With politically motivated policy taking precedence over expert knowledge in Mr Brown’s calamitous Government, we now have regulation by dictat - the blind really are leading the blind. As the Dutch philosopher Erasmus put it so appropriately half a millennium ago, ‘In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king!’

Let us hope that Professor Nutt’s refusal to go quietly will encourage others to stand up to this preposterous bully - the reputation of science itself is now under attack. Without strong public support, there is little hope for the continued application of reason and common sense within the political maelstrom of modern day Britain.