Science V Politics

Professor David Nutt, from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, has been sacked by Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, for complaining about the way that the cabinet ignored the scientific evidence in coming to their conclusion to re-classify cannabis as a Class B drug. What I find sad about this is that what could have been a useful debate, based on scientific facts, moral judgment and social imperatives has descended into the politicians wielding their power and slapping down the scientific officer who, it seems, feels honour bound to express the evidential truth. It seems to me that democracy has been broken when the powers that be try to hide the truth!

Of course, the scientific evidence isn't the be all and end all of debate. It may even be interpreted in different ways (though I don't think that is the case here). And there are many other factors that effect drugs law: for example the ability of the police to test for driving under the influence; income streams that boost organised crime; the slippery slope towards harder drugs; and the message that smoking cannabis is not good for your health.

Interactive Democracy - or any debate - is best served by the truth. The scientists have a very valuable contribution to make and anything that discourages their honourable efforts, stifles democracy its self.

"Who Runs Britain?"

Robert Peston, the acclaimed BBC Business Editor, writes in his book "Who Runs Britain?"

"... it would be to ignore all history to presume that the super-rich, or their trust-fund children, or their plutocratic children's children won't endeavour to convert a fraction of their fortunes into control of the media, sponsorship of lobby groups or seats in Parliament. Their big financial boots will become big political boots. It is irrelevant whether you think that they will do ill or good with their new political power. The accumulation of vast wealth by a growing class of super-rich - who owe no allegiance to any state - is a regressive trend for the distribution of power. It will taint governance and distort democracy."

Interactive Democracy helps counter balance the problem of economic power becoming political power: 1 issue/1 person/1 vote dissipates political power amongst the electorate, making it much more difficult for money to surreptitiously influence policy; and, at the point of casting their vote, the electorate will be presented with a list of the pros and cons of each argument, generated by MPs and citizens, undermining the influence of the media. I think it would be sensible to have laws against lying, too. (For more please see this post.)

Please click here for Robert Peston's blog.