Monday, November 02, 2009

Logical adjectivism

No true scientist can work for Mr Johnson,’ teases The Times on its front page.

How can true scientists advise this or any other government?’ asks the heading on the Thunderer column to which we have been directed.

But things get interesting when we read down to what Professor David Nutt (for it is he) actually wrote: ‘… it seems unlikely that any “true” scientist – one who can speak only the truth – will be able to work for this, or future Home Secretaries.

At least we get a definition, not just the old “all good bookshops” “no true Scotsman” or “any real woman” trick.

Personally, I take leave to doubt that there is anyone in this world, scientist or not, who falls within the definition. In fact I would go so far as to say that, on balance & all things considered, it is a Good Thing that no such person (scientist or not) can work for a Home Secretary.

I was wavering on this controversy, mainly because I was not clear as to the actual status of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, but this scientific totalitarianism is going too far.

The Emeritus Professor of Behavioural Pharmacology at the Institute of Psychiatry of King’s College London has written to the Editor of The Times to warn that “Anyone who takes on the role risks being branded by the scientific community as a collaborator with a Government that has no respect for expertise.” [My emphasis]

Collaborators. Deniers (of climate change). This OTT language does nothing to increase respect for scientists; their knowledge is not privileged over all others.

Nor is it a defence to say that a politician will attempt to avoid responsibility sometimes, when it suits them to say ‘I made this hard decision because it is what the science says.’

Professor Nutt should have resigned. He has every right to say whatever he likes about this (or any other government’s) policy on drugs. But not while wearing the badge of chair of the Advisory Council.

Of course the press might not then be so eager to publicise his views. But that is the point, is it not?

Although some argue that those who give freely of their time & expertise in such roles may claim a special respect for their position, they at least do not lose their salary & their pension for speaking out.

Links
Related posts