A N Wilson: Scientists Are Arrogant Gods
Firstly, I should point out that, as I'm not an expert on drugs or their physical, neurological or social effects, I don't want to comment on any of the work of Professor David Nutt. In fact, the story of Prof. Nutt's sacking has less to do with what was said and more to do with his right to say it.
Prof. Nutt was the chairman of a government advisory board. He was asked his opinions on policy related to drug classification and the misuse of drugs. He stated his position and, rightly or wrongly, his opinions were ignored. Well, not ignored per se, the government decided to go in a different direction from those suggest by the advisory panel, which they are entitled to do; it is an ADVISORY panel, after all.
He was later told to resign, after he suggested, in his expert opinion, that certain banned substances were safer than alcohol and tobacco. Whether he is right or wrong is up for debate, but why was he sacked simply for stating his opinion, based on his scientific research?
It looks quite bad for the government that they've effectively sacked a member of an advisory panel for voicing opinions contrary to their own. Why bother with an advisory panel if you'll only take it's advise if it supports your position?
Now I come to the disgraceful article on the Daily Mail's website, dated 4th November 2009. In it, A N Wilson claims:
Now he has been sacked, the scientific establishment is in an uproar of self-pity and self-importance. How dare mere politicians question their judgments? They are scientists, aren't they? And what scientists say must be taken as true.
... and ...
...there is an increasing presumption among many intelligent and good-hearted people that science is an absolute truth, that its methods of arriving at the truth are infallible and that scientists must be listened to at all times.
No. What members of the scientific community, myself included, are worried about is that only advice that is in line with the governments position will be heeded. Science relies on debate and contradiction, otherwise there would be little or no advancement. It is unlikely that any scientist worth his salt would believe research simply because it was written by another scientist. We spend a great deal of time proving that certain research and theories are, in fact, bobbins.
Wilson also, unhelpfully, states:
Going back in time, some people think that Hitler invented the revolting experiments performed by Dr Mengele on human beings and animals.
before having to state:
I am not suggesting that any British scientists are currently conducting experiments comparable to those which were allowed in Nazi Germany or in Soviet Russia.But I see the same habit of mind at work in Professor Nutt and his colleagues as made those mad scientists of the 20th century think they were above the moral law which governs the rest of us mortals
Again, no. Nutt never said that the government MUST agree with him, but surely he deserves to keep his job if he does not?
The most laughable quote of the piece reads:
In fact, it is the arrogant scientific establishment which questions free expression. Think of the hoo-ha which occurred when one hospital doctor dared to question the wisdom of using the MMR vaccine.
A link that has never been proved. Research that could never get published. A doctor who start a scare that was confounded by sloppy journalism and panicked many susceptible parents. A scare that has, almost certainly, impacted on yearly cases of measles. See here and here.
Normally I don't agree with comments left on the Daily Mail website (as I've said before), but Will from Sanfransisco sums my views perfectly:
The problem isn't science or scientists, but the way science is reported and scientists are portrayed in the media. It certainly is easier to sit in an armchair and write generalisations then it is to actually dedicate your life to the understanding of the way things work.
The findings of these dedicated modern day Sherlock Holmes are then reported by journalists who are not interested in the full story but rather on how appealing a story it might be to the masses.
Scientists have a thirst for truth, but the administrative world that we live in requires continuous rapid results. This can inadvertently lead to flawed experimental reasoning or incomplete studies. Is it arrogant to believe in your own work? Ask a politician, lawyer...
The problem therefore isn't science or scientists but rather an unwillingness of everyone to get the full story when it comes to scientific research. Science is about debating of ideas. How can you debate something you don't fully understand?
Comments [0]