Logo

Scientific advice may suggest how dangerous things are - like smoking cannabis and horse riding - but risk is not all about numbers, says Michael Blastland in his regular column.
Sir David King, a former chief scientific adviser (not to be confused with Professor David Nutt of cannabis and horse riding fame - we'll come to him in a minute), said the government should press ahead, urgently, with a new generation of nuclear reactors because of the threat of climate change.
Two conclusions in just one policy, but sufficient to skewer many people. Some will agree with his assessment of the threat to the climate, while recoiling at his remedy. Others will be comfortable with nuclear power but not share the rationale. Sir David also famously argued that genetically modified crops were safer than conventional ones.
If you find yourself resisting any of the policy implications here, you are guilty of rejecting scientific advice. For though opinions vary, Sir David was, after all, the chief scientific adviser.
The point is a simple one, that people's attitude to the validity of scientific advice often shifts according to how congenial they find it. It's a point worth bearing in mind in the case this week of Professor David Nutt versus the Home Office on the classification of cannabis and other drugs.