British drug scientist sacked in government row.

builttospill · 01-11-2009 05:03PM

Listen, I stopped entertaining this nonsense a good few pages ago (although now that I'm posting again undermines my intentions-damn you anger!). Just leave it. You can't argue with these people cos they have their own personal agenda which is completely detached from rational thought or indeed facts. We are going around in circles here and everything relevant to the topic has already been stated in previous posts. It's a dead duck that's drank too many pints and snorted 25 yokes every day for the last few days.

"Stupid people always win arguments because they are too stupid to realise when they are wrong."

-Chris Morris, Jam.

reality_check · 01-11-2009 05:05PM

You can't argue with these people cos they have their own personal agenda which is completely detached from rational thought or indeed facts.

Ironic.

Herbal Deity · 01-11-2009 05:10PM

reality_check wrote: »

There is a lot of pharacological similarity here which cannot be denied. The conclusions that the YouTube video above draws in relation to methamphetamine can be applied also, to a significant extent, to MDMA.

The two chemicals are not worlds apart when it comes to effects and mode of operation.

They are worlds apart.

What you're writing makes absolutely no sense. You simply cannot take two different compounds, no matter how similar they are structurally, or how similar they seem from what you read about their effects, and make conclusions about one based on research into the other

In fact, it's interesting you mention MDMA and Methamphetamine, because in 2002 a paper was published by Dr. Ricaurte. It was subsequently found that he had mistakenly used methamphetamine, not MDMA, in his research, and he was forced to retract his paper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retracted_article_on_neurotoxicity_of_ecstasy
http://www.maps.org/mdma/studyresponse.html

Pat Sheen · 01-11-2009 05:11PM

If you cannot provide advice which goes against the government then you cannot be independent now can you? And that would be illegal. But yeah this horse is glue already.

Bandit12 · 01-11-2009 05:13PM

It did'nt suit the man so he was fired.Simple as that.

walshb · 01-11-2009 05:13PM

Pat Sheen wrote: »

If you cannot provide advice which goes against the government then you cannot be independent now can you? And that would be illegal. But yeah this horse is glue already.

Pat, this is it. History has told us that if you are employed by the govt, whether it be direct or indirect and you publicly contradict or disagree with
them, then expect consequences. That is all I am saying. This may be wrong, right or whatever, but it's reality and that is why his sacking is not outrageous to me.

Fremen · 01-11-2009 05:14PM

reality_check wrote: »

While MDMA is known for its serotonergic effects moreso, it is nonetheless also a releaser of dopamine; which is metamphetamine's main feature.

Both chemicals can be called serotonin-norepinephrine-dopamine releasing agents.

Lots of drugs release dopamine. Nicotine releases dopamine. That isn't necessarily the destinguishing feature of the drug.
Serotonin reuptake inhibitors can be used as antidepressants. Does that make ecstasy an antidepressant?

To be honest, it seems like you're throwing a load of technical details out there which no-one but a chemist can argue with. Unless you happen to be a chemist yourself, I don't think it's legitimate to use them to claim proof.

Regardless of chemical structure, the effects of MDMA and Methamphetamine are massively different.
No-one takes MDMA and stays up for four days at a stretch. Methamphetamine is highly habit-forming, whereas MDMA isn't so much. There aren't institutions full of people trying to kick MDMA.

Methamphetamine has the potential to do quite a lot of harm, both to individuals and a society. I just don't see that with MDMA, and it seems the scientific consensus agrees with me.

Wertz · 01-11-2009 05:17PM

Herbal Deity wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retracted_article_on_neurotoxicity_of_ecstasy
http://www.maps.org/mdma/studyresponse.html

Intersting links, thanks for those...

A good example of flawed data being used to stregthen anti drug policy, but in the wake of discreditation, a failure to repeal such laws or at least bring them under review.
Sits well with the current goings on in the Uk I'd have thought...

Wiki wrote:

In an interview in The Scientist British scientists Colin Blakemore and Leslie Iversen described how they expressed concerns about the article with editors at Science. "It's an outrageous scandal," Iversen told The Scientist. "It's another example of a certain breed of scientist who appear to do research on illegal drugs mainly to show what the governments want them to show. They extract large amounts of grant money from the government to do this sort of biased work."

Herbal Deity · 01-11-2009 05:19PM

walshb wrote: »

Pat, this is it. History has told us that if you are employed by the govt, whether it be direct or indirect and you publicly contradict or disagree with
them, then expect consequences. That is all I am saying. This may be wrong, right or whatever, but it's reality and that is why his sacking is not outrageous to me.

Well, I suppose what's outrageous is that this is one of the clearest indications to date that the drugs policies of governments are not based on scientific or medical research, but on traditional agendas.

walshb · 01-11-2009 05:23PM

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Well, I suppose what's outrageous is that this is one of the clearest indications to date that the drugs policies of governments are not based on scientific or medical research, but on traditional agendas.

But, why is everyone assuming Nutt is 100 percent correct here?

It is a gray and difficlult area, and many will counter argue him with
relevant evidence and stas.

So, he isn't necessarily the be all and end all here.

As folks have said, this comparison of the two (Alcohol-E&Canabis)
is hard to quantify

reality_check · 01-11-2009 05:26PM

In fact, it's interesting you mention MDMA and Methamphetamine, because in 2002 a paper was published by Dr. Ricaurte. It was subsequently found that he had mistakenly used methamphetamine, not MDMA, in his research, and he was forced to retract his paper.

The drug lobby have a field day with this one. One study by Ricaurte had a mix-up with chemicals. The drug lobby use this as "proof" of "Government lies" and even as proof for the "safety of MDMA".

When the mistake with materials was discovered, Ricaurte retracted the study. I don't know why the lobby makes such a big deal of this.

Ricaurte's claim that MDMA is a dangerous neurotoxin is something he stands by, and something he has demonstrated in other scientific literature.

Fremen · 01-11-2009 05:28PM

walshb wrote: »

But, why is everyone assuming Nutt is 100 percent correct here?

It is a gray and difficlult area, and many will counter argue him with
relevant evidence and stas.

I don't think anyone's saying he's correct.
It just rankles some people that the government ignored him when he gave them advice in opposition to their policies, then fired him when he went public.

The overall impression is that the government didn't want advice in the first place, that they just wanted to be told they were doing the right thing.

You're saying that this is the nature of government, and that's fair enough, I guess you have a point.
I don't think I'd vote for anyone who worked like this, though.

Pat Sheen · 01-11-2009 05:32PM

walshb wrote: »

Pat, this is it. History has told us that if you are employed by the govt, whether it be direct or indirect and you publicly contradict or disagree with
them, then expect consequences. That is all I am saying. This may be wrong, right or whatever, but it's reality and that is why his sacking is not outrageous to me.

I was under the impression you thought he got what he deserved. This thread is too long for me to start trawling back looking for quotes. Did you not say this at one point?

Herbal Deity · 01-11-2009 05:36PM

walshb wrote: »

But, why is everyone assuming Nutt is 100 percent correct here?

It is a gray and difficlult area, and many will counter argue him with
relevant evidence and stas.

So, he isn't necessarily the be all and end all here.

As folks have said, this comparison of the two (Alcohol-E&Canabis)
is hard to quantify

Well, he's not 0% correct, and he's much, much better qualified than most who would argue against him.

Tbh, the government were ignoring his council's professional advice, I can see why he went public.

I can only see this as a positive thing for proper, informed reform of drug laws.

walshb · 01-11-2009 05:36PM

Fremen wrote: »

I don't think anyone's saying he's correct.
It just rankles some people that the government ignored him when he gave them advice in opposition to their policies, then fired him when he went public.

The overall impression is that the government didn't want advice in the first place, that they just wanted to be told they were doing the right thing.

You're saying that this is the nature of government, and that's fair enough, I guess you have a point.
I don't think I'd vote for anyone who worked like this, though.

It is the nature of govt and in many cases, it's correct and good.

In this case, many would say it's good. Many who are anti these drugs and whom think that E and Canabis would be a far greater risk to society
than alcohol. Now, in this case, they would welcome the sacking
of a man who is going public in his disagreement with the govt on the issue.

No matter who you vote for, this poicy will exist and like I said, it exists for a reason. Many situations need advice and opinion, but when certain folks openly come out and criticise, then it stands to reason that there will be
consequences. I don't see the fuss with this. It's part of society

walshb · 01-11-2009 05:39PM

Pat Sheen wrote: »

I was under the impression you thought he got what he deserved. This thread is too long for me to start trawling back looking for quotes. Did you not say this at one point?

I said he deserved the sack, but that I meant this in the concept of what I have spoke of. He had to expect it, and it depends on what camp you are in.
Publicly coming out meant he had to be sacked. He brought this on himself. If I did it, I would expect it. It's nothing new, and to some it may seem harsh, but it is what goes on.

Hey, if I was his boss and he publicly came out against me and criticised me, I would ****ing sack him

Pygmalion · 01-11-2009 05:44PM

walshb wrote: »

Pat, this is it. History has told us that if you are employed by the govt, whether it be direct or indirect and you publicly contradict or disagree with
them, then expect consequences. That is all I am saying. This may be wrong, right or whatever, but it's reality and that is why his sacking is not outrageous to me.

I don't really see people saying it's surprising or outrageous, I see people saying that it's wrong and that he didn't deserve it.

It was his job to give information based on research done.
He did exactly that and he got fired because the science doesn't support the politics.
The only way he could've avoided this outcome was to lie to the public, or completely ignore relevant research (which many would consider to be just as bad).

Do you not see why people are angry, or do you think he should've just lied to everyone to keep his job?

EDIT: As for the viewpoint that he shouldn't have went public with it, he was basically ignored entirely when he told the government that the way they're treating drugs makes no sense, he saw the government policy as being very harmful (treating users of less dangerous drugs the same way they're treated junkies and coke-heads).
I'd say he'd rather put his job on the line and get the info out there (with a bit pf controversy and extra media coverage) than sit on his thumbs and have his work get completely ignored for years.

As well as that, I'm sure there's a lot of people angry that he wasn't allowed to give his results to the public, and that their money was going to a scientist whose work was being completely ignored and pretty much ridiculed (by consistently going against his recommendations without any debate), just so the government could occassionally point at him when the drugs debate comes up and pretend to have science on their side.

Fremen · 01-11-2009 05:45PM

walshb wrote: »

I said he deserved the sack, but that I meant this in the concept of what I have spoke of. He had to expect it, and it depends on what camp you are in.
Publicly coming out meant he had to be sacked. He brought this on himself. If I did it, I would expect it. It's nothing new, and to some it may seem harsh, but it is what goes on.

Hey, if I was his boss and he publicly came out against me and criticised me, I would ****ing sack him

As a converse to that, if I was put in charge of a public health issue, and my boss repeatedly ignored me, I'd blow the whistle on him, regardless of the consequences.

walshb · 01-11-2009 05:45PM

Pygmalion wrote: »

I don't really see people saying it's surprising or outrageous, I see people saying that it's wrong and that he didn't deserve it.

It was his job to give information based on research done.
He did exactly that and he got fired because the science doesn't support the politics.
The only way he could've avoided this outcome was to lie to the public, or completely ignore relevant research (which many would consider to be just as bad).

Do you not see why people are angry, or do you think he should've just lied to everyone to keep his job?

Never said he should have lied. He went public, that was his cock up.
That wasn't good for him, and I can see why

Wertz · 01-11-2009 05:46PM

walshb wrote: »

Many who are anti these drugs and whom think that E and Canabis would be a far greater risk to society
than alcohol.

Based on what...preconceptions, conventional thinking and the continued "Drugs are bad" rhetoric we're all bombarded with day in day out?
Don't you think that if society was given the hard facts on the perceived dangers of various drugs (including the legal ones) and told how much resources, both human and financial are being flittered away by governments on trying to keep their use in check, that these attitudes may be truned on their head?
No I suppose you've already made your mind up, just like Brown and his cabinet...

dr.bollocko · 01-11-2009 05:47PM

walshb wrote: »

I said he deserved the sack, but that I meant this in the concept of what I have spoke of. He had to expect it, and it depends on what camp you are in.
Publicly coming out meant he had to be sacked. He brought this on himself. If I did it, I would expect it. It's nothing new, and to some it may seem harsh, but it is what goes on.

Hey, if I was his boss and he publicly came out against me and criticised me, I would ****ing sack him

This is the thing. He isn't a whistle blower at all or anyone who sought to publicly oppose the government. He simply commissioned a report on work that was government funded. He didn't publicly come out against the government. He just gave his findings. Before taking this position he had written a criticism on the misuse of drugs act also. That said I have not looked at his research methods. But if it's bad science it should be argued down as such and not via a p45.

walshb · 01-11-2009 05:47PM

Fremen wrote: »

As a converse to that, if I was put in charge of a public health issue, and my boss repeatedly ignored me, I'd blow the whistle on him, regardless of the consequences.

That's great, but don't expect to keep your job. That's my point

BTW, he didn't blow a whistle here and unearth a wrong or a scandal or a deeply disturbing racket. He simply went public in his criticism of policy

Wertz · 01-11-2009 05:48PM

Pygmalion wrote: »

... or do you think he should've just lied to everyone to keep his job?

What, you mean like a politician would have?

Pat Sheen · 01-11-2009 05:51PM

walshb wrote: »

I said he deserved the sack, but that I meant this in the concept of what I have spoke of. He had to expect it, and it depends on what camp you are in.
Publicly coming out meant he had to be sacked. He brought this on himself. If I did it, I would expect it. It's nothing new, and to some it may seem harsh, but it is what goes on

Expecting and deserving are not the same thing. If you actually look at it objectively it doesn't matter what camp you are in. The independence of the acmd is enshrined in law so he isn't obliged to tell the government what they want to hear and sacking him for not doing so is a politicisation of the role of the council. That has a eerily familiar ring to it. Nor is he restrained from giving his views in public either btw. The role of the council exists because the law says it must exist.

Nodin · 01-11-2009 06:26PM

walshb wrote: »

That's great, but don't expect to keep your job. That's my point

BTW, he didn't blow a whistle here and unearth a wrong or a scandal or a deeply disturbing racket. He simply went public in his criticism of policy

...a policy that deliberately overrode and ignored the scientific data, thus pursuing a policy based on untruth for political purposes.

Two of his colleagues have now walked, so evidently he has support within his own peer group.

Pygmalion · 01-11-2009 06:43PM

Nodin wrote: »

...a policy that deliberately overrode and ignored the scientific data, thus pursuing a policy based on untruth for political purposes.

Two of his colleagues have now walked, so evidently he has support within his own peer group.

Not that surprised, I imagine scientists don't exactly like being told to shut up and keep their findings hidden from the public unless they agree with government policy.

reality_check · 01-11-2009 06:55PM

...a policy that deliberately overrode and ignored the scientific data, thus pursuing a policy based on untruth for political purposes.

Nutt's statements don't constitute the sum of the scientific data regarding MDMA.

Fremen · 01-11-2009 07:07PM

reality_check wrote: »

Nutt's statements don't constitute the sum of the scientific data regarding MDMA.

That's beside the point. The government hired him, then rejected the advice when it didn't back up their policies.

We're not debating whether ecstasy is bad for you: that's poorly understood, with many conflicting studies.
The issue here is the British government effectively sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "lalala, I can't heeeaaar you" when something doesn't go the way they wanted.

Dozen Wicked Words · 01-11-2009 11:17PM

Just watching the BBC, News reporter "people are wondering just why was Professor Nutt Sacked". Made me laugh anyway.

jif · 01-11-2009 11:51PM

thats just nuts

British drug scientist sacked in government row.

Comments