What Patrick Vallance appointment shows about science and government

This is a serious deficiency, in these days when government decisions frequently have to take account of scientific evidence.

Scientific investigations, for example, lie at the heart of our understanding of the effect of human activities on the planet, and of developing ways of reducing and mitigating these effects.

It is true that ministers have scientific advisors, but this is not enough. Ministers should be able to to understand and assess the scientific advice that they receive.

They may be given conflicting advice by different scientists: they then have to decide how much weight to give to each point of view.

Henry Haslam, author of ‘The Earth and Us’. (Image: Supplied)

Ministers also have to balance scientific advice against economic and other advice, taking account also of public opinion, public perception and political practicability. These may point in different directions. They certainly do with environmental issues.

There was an example of such a conflict between science and politics in 2009, with the so-called ‘Nutt case’.

When the government reviewed the classification of ecstasy and cannabis, political considerations prevailed over the scientific advice.

Professor David Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs, objected, publicly, and was dismissed from his role.

During the Covid-19 pandemic the government had to make decisions taking account of many different factors, mostly based on insufficient evidence: the disease itself and what was known about it; the likely impact of lockdown on the NHS, schoolchildren and the elderly; the possibility of developing a vaccine; and the costs to the public purse.

I am sure that we shall have much to learn, with hindsight, from the report of the Covid-19 Inquiry.

Henry Haslam is the author of ‘The Earth and Us’.