The Government is to endorse a set of principles guaranteeing independence and academic freedom to its expert advisers demanded by leading scientists following the sacking of David Nutt, The Times has learnt.

Lord Drayson, the Science and Innovation Minister, said he agreed fully with a statement issued by leading researchers yesterday, which said advisers should not be dismissed for disagreeing with government policy.

He said he supported the idea of giving independent press officers to scientific advisory committees, so they did not have to release their findings through government departments that might have an interest in how they are portrayed.

In an interview with The Times, he said the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, had been wrong to sack Professor Nutt as his chief drugs adviser without consulting either himself or Professor John Beddington, the chief scientific adviser, who were both out of the country at the time of the dismissal.

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

• Scientists demand guarantees after drugs sacking

• Chief scientist backs adviser's cannabis stance

• Advisers have a right to speak plainly

Multimedia

• EUREKA ZONE: our dedicated science blog

He agreed that the affair had been unfortunate, “because it led to serious concern in the scientific community, and if I had been asked by the Home Secretary before he took that decision I would have said that a decision to dismiss Professor Nutt would have caused serious concern”.

He added: “It’s very important that in future the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Science Minister are consulted before ministers take decisions to sack independent scientific advisers.”

Lord Drayson would not be drawn on whether Mr Johnson had been right to sack Professor Nutt in principle, though called it a “big mistake” in an e-mail sent to No 10 at the weekend that was subsequently leaked.

“I don’t think it’s helpful at this point to go around the loop again of a post mortem,” he said.

Asked whether he had considered resigning over the issue, he said: “I think that questions like that should never be answered.”

The Government, he said, would produce clarified rules for government scientific advisers in line with the document released yesterday by Christmas.

“These ideas about how we can further clarify the rules of engagement between government and scientists are very helpful.”

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

They demanded that public discussion of scientific evidence that contravenes government policy should not be grounds 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 acknowledged that the recommendations of advisory bodies will not always be accepted but ask that ministers who reject them explain their reasons fully and publicly.

Professor Nutt was dismissed as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs last week by Mr Johnson for questioning government decisions over the classification of cannabis and Ecstasy. Two other members resigned in sympathy with Professor Nutt.

The statement was 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.

Responding to today's developments, Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat science spokesman, who instigated the statement of principles, said: "Lord Drayson's approval of this Code of Practice for Ministers is welcome, but we need to see the written reply from the Government to the President of the Royal Society, to ensure that the Government as a whole is on board."

"Lord Drayson states the obvious when he criticises Alan Johnson for not consulting him before sacking Professor Nutt but scientists still want recognition that the sacking itself was unjustified and Professor Nutt of course deserves an apology for the damage done to his reputation, before a line can be drawn under this affair."

Times Recommends

• How I lost the gift of joy for a while
• Why Ann Widdecombe has got it wrong
• Alas, it’s the end of the road for petrolheads