Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations

Revisiting the David Nutt debate: Is it possible to rank different drugs by the harm they cause?

Date:
September 6, 2011
Source:
Wiley-Blackwell
Summary:
The scientific and political worlds were transfixed in late 2009 when UK drugs advisor Dr. David Nutt was sacked by Home Secretary Alan Johnson for his controversial views on the harmfulness of different drugs and the lack of evidence behind current drug policy, views first publicized in a Lancet report in 2007. Scientists at the time were unanimous that scholarly research such as Nutt's should not be subject to political attack, but a new scholarly article points out a more rational basis for criticizing Nutt's work on the harmfulness of drugs: it is scientifically flawed, the article's authors argue.

The scientific and political worlds were transfixed in late 2009 when UK drugs advisor Dr. David Nutt was sacked by Home Secretary Alan Johnson for his controversial views on the harmfulness of different drugs and the lack of evidence behind current drug policy, views first publicised in a Lancet report in 2007.1 Scientists at the time were unanimous that scholarly research such as Nutt's should not be subject to political attack, but a new article in the scholarly journal Addiction points out a more rational basis for criticizing Nutt's work on the harmfulness of drugs: it is scientifically flawed, the articles author's argue.

American researchers Jonathan Caulkins, Peter Reuter, and Carolyn Coulson argue that Nutt erred by assuming that drug-related harms can be reduced to a single dimension. Most such rankings combine individual harms and harms to society. But national drug policies aim to reduce harm to society, so combined scores may be misleading. Furthermore, it is not for scientists alone to decide the relative weights society should place on such disparate drug-related harms as dependence, overdose death, and corruption. Caulkins and colleagues also argue that even perfect ratings of substances' current harm to society would not be useful, because harm is governed by the interaction between substance and policy; it is not a property of the chemical alone. Policymakers need analytical tools that show the likely changes in different types of harm associated with each change in drug policy.

Addiction hosts a spirited international debate about these critiques, including a response from Dr. Nutt himself.

Canadian researchers Benedikt Fischer and Perry Kendall argue that there is no benefit to categorically knocking down the work of Nutt and his colleagues when current global drug control policy pays scientific evidence no heed. The primary problem at hand is to get governments to pay attention to the evidence for drug policies, not to develop more complex rankings that will be ignored. Fischer and Kendall state, "If we assume public health and welfare should be guiding principles for substance control policy, we would not expect to see the third most commonly used drug (cannabis) to be scheduled and regulated alongside drugs like heroin and cocaine, while alcohol and tobacco are not only legally available, but are openly traded and lead to thousands of cases of deaths and injuries each year."

This view is supported by Norwegian researcher Ingeborg Rossow. She argues that Norwegian policymakers' views reflect those of the general public: illegal substances constitute a larger problem than alcohol, which justifies strict control of illegal drugs and liberalization of alcohol control. Addiction researchers know that legal substances (alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs) are as much a problem as illegal substances, but getting the public to recognize this fact is difficult. Publicising reports on the relative size of harms from legal and illegal substances may help to change public opinion.

Australian researcher Robin Room argues that all national drug schedules are based on two outdated, pharmacologically-based international drug treaties from 1961 and 1971. By ranking drugs in the light of changes in knowledge and understanding since then, Nutt and colleagues have "started a debate which is long overdue."

"The priority of the debate" Room argues, "should be on the official schedules and what to do about them."

Isidore Obot, a Nigerian researcher, embraces the idea of developing more complex policy tools, because more refined ranking systems will produce more useful information for policymakers. The value of the model developed by Nutt and colleagues lies in the improvements future researchers will make to it.

David Nutt's defence is expressed in his Voltairian title, "Let not the best be the enemy of the good." Nutt accepts that the 2007 harm-ranking model is imperfect but argues that it is nonetheless a good attempt to use scientific evidence in drug policy. Says Nutt: "we have provided the best currently available analysis of an extremely complex multifaceted data set. It ain't perfect but is nevertheless good enough to be useful." Nutt also explains that his simplified look at drug harms provides policymakers with a tool of the type they use: "All decisions regarding drug classifications resolve harms into a single scale point for each drug, so people, particularly politicians, are used to making and working with such estimations."

Caulkins, Reuter, and Coulson respond by restating that the current methods of ranking drugs by harm are conceptually and methodologically unsound. Defending them on the grounds that that simplification is required is equally unsound. We need better methods for understanding the complex network of individual and aggregate harms. "[If] the public has trouble grasping multi-dimensional scales, that should be seen as a hurdle to overcome, not a restraint that needs to be accepted."

The final word should perhaps go to Fischer and Kendall, who argue that any country that uses these admittedly flawed and limited harm scales to inform public policy will experience a "quantum leap of progress" toward evidence-based drug policy. They state that "The benefits from grounding drug control policy in Nutt et al.'s harm scales could be expected to be tangible and last until well after their critics have revised and improved them."


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by Wiley-Blackwell. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.


Journal References:

  1. Jonathan P. Caulkins, Peter Reuter, Carolyn Coulson. Basing drug scheduling decisions on scientific ranking of harmfulness: false promise from false premises. Addiction, 2011; DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03461.x
  2. David Nutt, Leslie A King, William Saulsbury, Colin Blakemore. Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse. The Lancet, 2007; 369 (9566): 1047 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4

Cite This Page:

Wiley-Blackwell. "Revisiting the David Nutt debate: Is it possible to rank different drugs by the harm they cause?." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 6 September 2011. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110906121953.htm>.
Wiley-Blackwell. (2011, September 6). Revisiting the David Nutt debate: Is it possible to rank different drugs by the harm they cause?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 30, 2014 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110906121953.htm
Wiley-Blackwell. "Revisiting the David Nutt debate: Is it possible to rank different drugs by the harm they cause?." ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110906121953.htm (accessed July 30, 2014).

Share This




More Health & Medicine News

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations


Featured Videos

from AP, Reuters, AFP, and other news services

Health Insurers' Profits Slide

Health Insurers' Profits Slide

Reuters - Business Video Online (July 30, 2014) Obamacare-related costs were said to be behind the profit plunge at Wellpoint and Humana, but Wellpoint sees the new exchanges boosting its earnings for the full year. Fred Katayama reports. Video provided by Reuters
Powered by NewsLook.com
Concern Grows Over Worsening Ebola Crisis

Concern Grows Over Worsening Ebola Crisis

AFP (July 30, 2014) Pan-African airline ASKY has suspended all flights to and from the capitals of Liberia and Sierra Leone amid the worsening Ebola health crisis, which has so far caused 672 deaths in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. Duration: 00:43 Video provided by AFP
Powered by NewsLook.com
At Least 20 Chikungunya Cases in New Jersey

At Least 20 Chikungunya Cases in New Jersey

AP (July 30, 2014) At least 20 New Jersey residents have tested positive for chikungunya, a mosquito-borne virus that has spread through the Caribbean. (July 30) Video provided by AP
Powered by NewsLook.com
Generics Eat Into Pfizer's Sales

Generics Eat Into Pfizer's Sales

Reuters - Business Video Online (July 29, 2014) Pfizer, the world's largest drug maker, cut full-year revenue forecasts because generics could cut into sales of its anti-arthritis drug, Celebrex. Fred Katayama reports. Video provided by Reuters
Powered by NewsLook.com

Search ScienceDaily

Number of stories in archives: 140,361

Find with keyword(s):
Enter a keyword or phrase to search ScienceDaily for related topics and research stories.

Save/Print:
Share:

Breaking News:
from the past week

In Other News

... from NewsDaily.com

Science News

Health News

Environment News

Technology News



Save/Print:
Share:

Free Subscriptions


Get the latest science news with ScienceDaily's free email newsletters, updated daily and weekly. Or view hourly updated newsfeeds in your RSS reader:

Get Social & Mobile


Keep up to date with the latest news from ScienceDaily via social networks and mobile apps:

Have Feedback?


Tell us what you think of ScienceDaily -- we welcome both positive and negative comments. Have any problems using the site? Questions?
Mobile: iPhone Android Web
Follow: Facebook Twitter Google+
Subscribe: RSS Feeds Email Newsletters
Latest Headlines Health & Medicine Mind & Brain Space & Time Matter & Energy Computers & Math Plants & Animals Earth & Climate Fossils & Ruins