The Psych Student

The case of Prof. David Nutt is important to all areas of science, as it asks some crucial questions about the socieity in which we live:  Is working with the government becoming CV stain? Will it ruin your reputation? Can anyone take you seriously after working with a government agency, or should you at least be looked at with some suspicion?

Bad times. The sacking of David Nutt over his accurate, verifiable ranking of dangerous drugs by Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes murky the role of scientific advisors in government systems where politics are more often all that matters. The ability for scientists to speak openly and honestly is under attack. David Nutt has done so before, and then it helped improved the lives of many in the UK dealing with depression. Perhaps he thought that may have bought him some credit. But political memory is short.

“An increasing number of psychiatrists followed the practice of evidence-based methods. They preferred truth – however inconvenient – to dearly held fantasies. Nice – the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence – now advises doctors to prescribe antidepressants only for severely depressed patients, while mildly, moderately and severely depressed patients should receive psychotherapy.” – Dorothy Rowe

Science has always had the bad end of its relationship with politics. In the 17th century Galileo was forced to renounce his work which suggested the sun as opposed to the earth, was at the center of things. In 1925 a high school teacher in Dayton, Tenn., named John Scopes was persecuted by religious fundementalists and the state alike for daring to teach evolution in a science class. This is the tradition the Home Secretary now follows by putting political careerism and pandering ahead of a careful consideration of fact and clear evidence.