The sacking of David Nutt as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and the ensuing debate, have left wounds in the relationship between scientists and the Government. In the interests of all, these wounds must not fester.

The Government has to cope with a host of issues — energy, climate change, food, flu pandemics, pollution — that involve complex scientific assessment. Advice is needed from those best qualified to give it — and must be as balanced and authoritative as possible.

But in the real world, ministers’ decisions are hardly ever purely “scientific”, but also involve economic, social and ethical factors. Scientists on advisory committees must accept that sometimes policy can properly be adopted that differs from what they would favour.

But it is crucial to reassure scientists in advisory roles that their input is respected. Government must allow scientists to continue as active researchers — publishing work, speaking at conferences and so forth. To jeopardise such activities would undermine the academic standing that makes them valuable.

Their independence must also be protected. Scientific advisers are not there to rubber-stamp policies. Advice should reach ministers before decisions are taken; and when ministers want to reject it, they should discuss it first. Where government does reject scientific evidence, it must explain why openly.

In the 1980s, BSE illustrated how even the best scientific advice had to be hedged with uncertainties. But in its aftermath, the inquiry headed by Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers set out the best practice that should be followed by the Government in using scientific advice. These principles, and those in the Government’s own “code of practice for advisory committees”, should not be eroded.

Scientists are now much more willing to accept their responsibilities to get involved in policymaking. They provide their time and expertise, often unpaid. It would be deeply unfortunate if some now question that commitment.

A clear statement from the top of government is required to reassure scientists in the advisory structure that what they are doing is important and that their independence is respected. Scientists should then be able to trust ministers to give due consideration to the evidence provided. That is what is required in the short term. But it will be the actions of ministers in the coming months and years that will be the test of the Government’s commitment to evidence-based decision-making.

Lord Rees of Ludlow is President of the Royal Society

Times Recommends

• Ted Hughes was a prophet of climate change
• Health & safety can damage your reasoning
• It’s Big Brother’s stupidity that scares me