Ministers have been challenged not to sack expert advisers who disagree publicly with government policy after the dismissal of David Nutt as the Home Office’s chief drugs adviser.

Senior scientists, including 17 government advisers, a former chief scientist and the head of Britain’s national academy of science, have asked the Government to commit to three principles so that academics are not discouraged from joining advisory bodies.

They demand that public discussion of scientific evidence that contravenes government policy should not be a ground for dismissal as an adviser, and that membership of an official panel should not bar researchers from speaking freely to academia, the media or Parliament.

They acknowledge that the recommendations of advisory bodies will not always be accepted but ask that ministers who reject them explain their reasons fully and publicly.

Times Archive, 1977: Cannabis and the law: the narrow escape

Callaghan's reaction to the Wootton report was instantaneous and forthright

• Mr Callaghan's remarks on drugs an 'insult', 1969

Related Links

• Chief scientist backs adviser's cannabis stance

• Advisers have a right to speak plainly

• Scientists threaten to quit in drugs row

The statement of principles, which was sent yesterday to No 10 and the Government Office for Science, comes after mounting concern at Professor Nutt’s dismissal as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. He was sacked last week by Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, for questioning government decisions over the classification of cannabis and Ecstasy. Two other members resigned in sympathy with Professor Nutt.

The principles will be raised by the remaining members of the council when they meet Mr Johnson on Tuesday. Some are likely to resign if the Government does not endorse them.

Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat science spokesman, who suggested the statement to leading scientists, said: “The ball is now in the Government’s court. A failure to provide these reassurances will only deepen mistrust. More resignations would be bad for the Government and so would advice that is diluted for difficult ministers.”

The scientists said ministers need to affirm their support for the principles of academic freedom, independence of action and proper consideration of expert advice, so that scientists remained willing to serve as government advisers.

The statement is endorsed by Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Lord May of Oxford, a former Government chief scientific adviser, and 26 other senior researchers. Other signatories include Professor Jon Ayres, chairman of the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants and the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, Professor Alan Jackson, chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, and Professor Chris Pollock, chairman of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment.

Colin Blakemore, chairman of a Food Standards Agency expert panel that led the drafting of the statement, said: “The priority now must be to rebuild the confidence of the scientific community in the way the Government, and indeed the opposition parties, treat scientific advice and those who provide it.

“If the Government can sign up to this statement, which essentially summarises commitments that have been made in the past, I hope that we can press the ‘reset’ button on the relationship.”

The document states that “becoming a member of an independent advisory committee does not reduce the freedom of an adviser to communicate publicly, whether via scholarly publication and conferences, through the general media or to Parliament, subject to the restrictions in existing codes of practice”.

Advisory panels must be “protected from political and other interference in their work” and “in the context of independent scientific advice, disagreement with government policy and the public articulation and discussion of relevant evidence and issues by members of advisory committees cannot be grounds for criticism or dismissal”.

Advisory groups should have access to an independent press office, rather than having to communicate their findings through a Whitehall department that may have an interest in undermining them. Committee reports should not be rejected before publication, and their members should be consulted before a minister decides not to accept a recommendation. The reasons for rejection should then “be described explicity and publicly”.

Phil Willis, chairman of the Commons Science and Technology Committee, wrote to Mr Johnson asking for his account of the events that led him to sack Professor Nutt. He has also asked Professor Nutt and Professor John Beddington, the current Government Chief Scientific Adviser, for their accounts of the affair.

Times Recommends

• The bright side of this winter rain
• Story behind the picture: Snow Leopard, 2008
• Times Charity Appeal: The Place2Be