The Code of Practise for
Scientific Committees
The Code of Practise for
Scientific Committees applies to the ACMD
Our summary,
comments in italics.
Remit:
11. The terms of
reference for most scientific advisory committees are
set by Government. It is Government’s
responsibility to ensure that a committee’s
remit is clear, and it is the committee’s
responsibility to raise concerns if they believe
there are ambiguities. As a general principle, any
required clarification of a committee’s role
should take place before a committee begins its work.
A committee’s formal terms of reference may well
have been set in statute or be otherwise difficult to
change, or be so broad as to leave scope for
interpretation. Committees should create periodic
opportunities for members to discuss the
committee’s role, activities and resources, and
review these for consistency with the formal terms of
reference. Any necessary revisions should then be
considered with sponsoring departments.
ACMD's
statutory remit in the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA)
concerns risk assessments and regulatory options
evaluation of drugs that are misused; misuse is
harmful consumption – there is no
requirement to advise prohibition of possession,
supply and production; drugs refers to all drugs
- illegal drugs are referred to as
‘controlled drugs’; there is no
exclusion of traditional drugs alcohol and
tobacco. ACMD interpretation of their statutory
remit appears inconsistent with the text of the
MDA concerning their statutory remit. ACMD
provide no transparent explanation for the
apparent inconsistencies. [see MDA
for more]
13. Where a
committee is required to offer advice on social,
ethical and economic considerations which bear on the
scientific advice, it should be made explicit to the
committee that this role is being taken on. In
putting forward its advice, the committee should make
clear any limitations on its expertise to address
such wider considerations.
ACMD reports
suggest their advice is based only on scientific
evidence – there is no mention of social,
ethical or economic factors [see cannabis
reclassification report]. ACMD do not have
expertise in non-scientific areas – the MDA
only requires they have scientific expertise.
They have no expertise in risk assessment and
regulatory options evaluation but do not make
this clear. [see MDA for more]
Responsibilities
of chairs
22. Chairs of
advisory committees have responsibility for:
- ensuring that the
full range of scientific opinion, including
unorthodox and contrary scientific views are
appropriately taken into account;
ACMD do not
seem to take account of the views of Colin
Blakemore, Chief Executive of the Medical
Research Council, and the Beckley Foundation.
These scientists believe drug regulations for
traditional and non-traditional drugs should be
consistent, targeted at harmful use and
proportionate to harmfulness.
- ensuring that the
secretariat accurately documents the proceedings of
the committee so that there is a clear audit trail
showing how the committee reached its decisions.
There does
not appear to be a clear audit trail showing how
decisions were made. The Chairman has stated this
referring to the origins of the classification
system used in the MDA [more].
- ensuring that any
significant diversity of opinion among the members of
the panel is fully explored and discussed and if it
cannot be reconciled is accurately reflected in the
report and in any other communications with
sponsoring departments;
ACMD reports
indicate no diversity of opinion though many
members’ professions involve traditional and
non-traditional drugs equally.
- ensuring that the
committee acts in accordance with this Code.
ACMD do not
appear to comply with the Code - e.g. Home Office
drugs minister Caroline Flint, replying to a
parliamentary question on 24 June 2004, said "The
ACMD's minutes and agendas are not public
documents".
Members’
rights and responsibilities
25. Members of the
committee should ensure they understand why they are
being appointed and in what capacity, and the role
they are expected to play on the committee. Members
should understand the nature of any expertise that
they are asked to bring. Members with a particular
expertise have a responsibility to make the committee
aware of the full range of opinion within the
discipline.
Many
members’ professions involve traditional and
non-traditional drugs equally, suggesting they
believe both categories to be harmful drugs.
Members should be concerned about the omission of
traditional drugs from ACMD advice. Members
should also note the views of scientists
associated with the Beckley Foundation.
27. ... members of
committees … have a duty to act in the public
interest.
Identification
of alcohol and tobacco as harmful drugs is in the
public interest. Tolerating reasonably safe drug
use and ensuring consumer protection are also in
the public interest.
28. If additional
clarification of members’ roles is required,
this can most usefully be done after they are
appointed, but before they begin work.
Has this
ever occured?
29. Members should
regard themselves as free to question and comment on
the information provided or the views expressed by
any of the other members, notwithstanding that the
views or information do not relate to their own area
of expertise. If members believe the committee’s
method of working is not rigorous or thorough enough
they should have the right to ask that any remaining
concerns they have be put on the record.
Members have
a right and responsibility to fully understood
the decision-making process required under the
ACMD's statutory duty. This includes the
methodology for harmful drug identification, risk
assessment and regulatory options evaluation.
30. All members and
secretariats should regard it as part of their role
to:
| - |
consider
whether the questions on which the committee
offers advice are those which are of interest
to the public and other interested parties
outside the scientific community;
Identification
of alcohol and tobacco as harmful drugs
is in the public interest. It is also in
the public interest for ACMD to
distinguish between reasonably safe drug
use, use harmful to the consumer and use
harmful to others. Consumer, trade and
human rights are of concern as is
consumer protection.
|
| - |
examine
and challenge if necessary the assumptions on
which scientific advice is formulated and ask
for explanations of any scientific terms and
concepts which are not clear;
Members
should challenge assumptions that the
ACMD remit does not apply to traditional
drugs and that ACMD must advise
prohibition rather than licensing for
non-traditional drugs. Are members clear
what the words 'drugs' and 'misuse' refer
to in the Misuse of Drugs Act?
|
| - |
ensure
that the committee has the opportunity to
consider contrary scientific views and where
appropriate the concerns and values of
stakeholders before a decision is taken;
ACMD
do not seem to take account of the views
of Colin Blakemore, Chief Executive of
the Medical Research Council, and the
Beckley Foundation. These scientists
believe drug regulations for traditional
and non-traditional drugs should be
consistent, targeted at harmful use only
and proportionate to harmfulness. Concerns and values of
stakeholders, especially those severely
affected by ACMD decisions, are not
considered.
|
| - |
ensure
that the committee's advice is comprehensible
from the point of view of a lay person.
No
explanation is given why ACMD advises
that non-traditional drugs which are not
harmless should be prohibited while more
harmful traditional drugs are legally
available. Why advise prohibition of
cannabis when ACMD evidence suggests it
is a safer intoxicant than alcohol?
|
31. All members
should share in the general responsibility to
consider the wider context in which their expertise
is employed.
ACMD do not
seem to have assessed the regulatory option of
licensing though there is considerable debate
about such an option throughout society.
32. Members joining
committees should undergo an induction process. This
should cover the following issues (notwithstanding
that some of these may have been dealt with by the
sponsoring department during the appointment
process):
| Explanation
of the committee’s official remit |
| The
committee’s authority and powers |
| Who sets
the committee’s agenda |
| On what
basis decisions are made |
| The
committee’s current work and its future
agenda |
| The role of
the secretariat and other officials |
| Whether
meetings are open to the public |
| How the
public can find out what is discussed |
| Rights and
responsibilities of members |
| What
capacity they are serving in (as individuals
as opposed to being a delegate of an
organisation) |
| Whether any
proceedings or papers are confidential |
Do ACMD
members receive such induction? If so, what are
they told?
Role of the
secretariat
38. The secretariat
should include, or have access to, people with
relevant technical/scientific expertise.
ACMD must
assess risks and advise about regulatory options
but members have no expertise in these areas [see
13 above]. The Secretariat should ensure such
expert advice is provided to ACMD.
39. The secretariat
should be an impartial and disinterested reporter. It
should at all times respect the committee's
independent role. It should guard against introducing
bias during the preparation of papers, during
meetings, or in the reporting of the committee’s
deliberations.
It is not
clear if the Secretariat biases new members of
the ACMD in favour of traditional drugs and
against non-traditional drugs. The Secretariat
may encourage new members to believe the ACMD
remit excludes traditional drugs and requires
prohibitory advice for non-traditional drugs. The
ACMD Secretariat has said, in relation to the
exclusion of traditional drugs from their advice,
that ACMD, though independent, has decided its
advice should depend on Government policy.
40. The secretariat
should ensure that the proceedings of the committee
are properly documented so that there is a clear
audit trail showing how the committee reached its
decisions.
ACMD
Secretariat has not replied to requests for
further information about the decision to base
ACMD advice on Government policy to exclude
traditional drugs from their advice.
43. The secretariat
should draw up appropriate procedures, approved by
the committee, … ensuring that material is only
withheld from public release for confidentiality
reasons when there are justifiable reasons for doing
so.
ACMD
Secretariat has not explained the reasoning
behind ACMD decisions: to not identify and refer
to traditional drugs as drugs; to exclude
traditional drugs from their advice in line with
Government policy rather than scientifiuc
evidence of harmfulness; to target all use of
non-traditional drugs rather than harmful use
only; to advise prohibition of drugs that are not
harmless, an unreasonably harsh criteria; to
limit their statutory duty by excluding
traditional drugs and by not considering
licensing of non-traditional drugs.
Working practices
46. Committees
should operate from a presumption of openness. The
proceedings of the committee should be as open as is
compatible with the requirements of confidentiality
(see also below under "Dealing with confidential
information"). The committee should maintain
high levels of transparency during routine business.
ACMD
Secretariat has not explained the reasoning
behind many ACMD decisions – see 43 above.
Reporting of risk
and uncertainty
55. Committees
should aim at having a transparent and structured
framework to examine, debate and explain the nature
of the risk. It is for committees to decide what form
their risk assessments should take, but whatever
procedure is used, it should be a systematic one.
Whenever their work involves an assessment of risk,
committees should consider carefully, taking into
account the nature and scale of the problem, what
precision of estimates is appropriate or realistic,
in terms of costs, resources and time. Where a
committee is asked to provide risk management
options, it will normally be helpful for it to follow
a formal structure based on recognised principles of
risk assessment.
ACMD reviewed
their risk assessment framework in 2001 but it
remains unpublished. The ACMD reports on cannabis
reclassification in 2002 and the Ketamine report
of 2004 show no evidence of assessing risk
consistent with recognised principles of risk
assessment, nor with Government guidelines on
managing risks to the public.
56. Whenever the
committee’s work is likely to involve an
assessment of risk or where the scientific evidence
is expected to be subject to appreciable uncertainty,
if not already available within its membership,
advice should be taken from individuals or groups
with relevant expertise and/or guidance.
ACMD members
do not have expertise in risk assessment or
management. They do not seem to seek expertise
elsewhere [see 13 above].
59. Within the
context of the remit given to them, committees should
use the most appropriate method of reporting outcomes
that takes account of the level and type of
uncertainty involved. Where practical and verifiable,
risk should be reported in terms of the likelihood
and consequences of the event. Sources of data should
be quoted and any degree of auditing described. Where
a range of policy options are considered, risks
should be reported for each and reasons for choosing
a preferred option should be made clear.
ACMD reports
do not estimate risk likelihood and impact. No
comparison of regulatory options is made.
60. When
communicating risks to the public, committees should
take note of written guidance and other sources of
advice available on the communication of risk and
when necessary seek advice from individuals or groups
with relevant expertise on risk communication.
ACMD do not
follow any Government guidance on risk
communication. They may feel they only provide
advice to the Home Office and then HO
communicates risk to the public.
Procedures for
arriving at conclusions
63. Whatever
mechanism is used for agreeing the advice a committee
should offer, it is essential that the minutes of the
meeting should clearly set out what was the result of
the discussion.
ACMD meeting
minutes are not public documents. Home Office
drugs minister Caroline Flint, replying to a
parliamentary question on 24 June 2004, said "The
ACMD's minutes and agendas are not public
documents".
Dealing with
dissenting views
64. … any
significant diversity of opinion among the members of
the committee should be accurately reflected in the
report.
ACMD reports
indicate no diversity of opinion, unlike great
diversity in public and MPs opinion.
Publication of
documents - general
65. The committee
should establish a policy on what documents are to be
published based on principles of openness and
transparency. All committees are expected to publish,
as a minimum, programmes of work, meeting agenda,
minutes, final advice and an annual report. Unless
there are particular reasons to the contrary they
should also routinely publish supporting papers.
Openness from the outset about risks and concerns can
sometimes prevent difficult situations arising later
on in a committee’s work.
ACMD meeting
agenda and minutes are not public documents. Home
Office drugs minister Caroline Flint, replying to
a parliamentary question on 24 June 2004, said "The
ACMD's minutes and agendas are not public
documents".
Dealing with
confidential information
68. Committees
should abide by the principles contained in the Code
of Practice on Access to Government Information [now
the Freedom of Information Act].
ACMD
Secretariat has not replied to several letters.
Those letters replied to have not been fully
answered. See Correspondence with Government.
70. Committees
should be prepared to explain publicly why
information is being withheld.
ACMD have not
explained why any fundamental information is not
disclosed to the public – e.g. the failure
to identify traditional drugs as drugs and the
consequent discrimination between drugs based on
tradition rather than harmfulness.
Meeting agenda
72. Committees
should make the agenda available prior to meetings.
As a minimum this should be published on their
website and a paper copy available on request.
ACMD meeting
agendas are not published on their website. Home
Office drugs minister Caroline Flint, replying to
a parliamentary question on 24 June 2004, said "The
ACMD's minutes and agendas are not public
documents".
Publication of
minutes
73. The committee
should publish minutes of its meetings.
ACMD meeting
minutes are not public documents. Home Office
drugs minister Caroline Flint, replying to a
parliamentary question on 24 June 2004, said "The
ACMD's minutes and agendas are not public
documents".
Submitting and
publishing a committee’s advice
76. A
committee’s advice should be in writing, and
should be seen as independent of government.
ACMD
Secretariat has explained that the ACMD’s
advice is not independent of Government but
depends on Government policy. The ACMD’s
decision to exclude traditional drugs from their
advice is based on following Government policy
rather than evidence of harmfulness.
77. Advice should be
in terms that can be understood by a layperson. It
should explain the reasoning on which the advice is
based; make clear what principles, if any, of risk
management are being applied, any assumptions
underlying the advice and identify the nature and
extent of any uncertainty.
Principles of
risk management and assumptions underlying the
advice have not been made clear. It seems there
is an assumption that ACMD methodology should
follow that of United Nations drug Conventions.
78. In situations of
uncertainty, committees could offer a range of
options or interpretations to their departments
rather than just one. In so doing they should
distinguish between options which are alternative
interpretations of the scientific evidence, and
options which involve other factors including social,
ethical or economic considerations.
ACMD do not
appear to consider any options other than the
prohibition of possession, supply and production
of non-traditional drugs. They claim the
regulatory option of prohibition is justified by
scientific evidence that a drug is not harmless
rather than by social, ethical or economic
considerations. The concept of a harmless drug is
not scientific. No mention is made of public
opinion (public risk tolerance) or UN drug
Conventions as relevant factors.
Publication of
background documentation
85. In order to help
provide a full appreciation of its advice and
decisions, the committee should, where appropriate,
facilitate public access to documents or information
that have contributed to the formulation of its
advice. This would enable third parties to better
understand the conclusions reached and decisions
taken.
ACMD do not
publish any background documents, e.g.
explanations of their interpretation of their
statutory remit, their risk assessments and
regulatory options evaluation.
Communication
with the public
91. Committees
should develop a policy for the communication of
their work to the public and other interested parties
and for receiving feedback. There is a range of
mechanisms that can be used such as: open meetings,
public consultation, dialogue with interested parties
and the calling of outside experts to attend
meetings.
ACMD seem
reluctant to communicate with the public (see 60
above).
92. Committees
should identify interested parties and consider
maintaining an open register of relevant
stakeholders. They should consult on issues that
generate widespread public concern or raise
significant ethical questions. Particular attention
should be paid to the communication of risk
assessments.
ACMD do not
identify and communicate with relevant
stakeholders, non-traditional drug consumers, nor
consult this group who are severely affected by
ACMD decisions that deny them equal rights with
traditional drug consumers.
Public
consultation
96. The general
principle of consultation is that there should be
transparency, which means that the public should be
able to understand the procedures by which the
committee arrived at its decisions. There should also
be openness, in the sense that the public should have
sufficient information available to be able to
understand the chain of reasoning underlying a
committee’s advice, and have access to the
information on which the committee based its
assessments.
ACMD do not
consult the public (see 60 & 91 above).
Information
exchange
99. Committees
should be told of the existence of any other relevant
committees and have opportunities to exchange
information with them. This might involve giving
other committees advance notice of significant
announcements, copying relevant documents or sharing
best practice through joint meetings. Where
appropriate committees should develop contacts with
relevant European Union and international committees.
ACMD should
work closely with the World Health Organisation
who provide the United Nations with scientific
advice about harmful drugs just as ACMD does to
the UK Government. The Chairman of ACMD also
holds a post at WHO. WHO’s European Alcohol
Action Plan 2000–2005 says "WHO has
always advocated a combined approach to reduce
the harm resulting from the use of alcohol, drugs
and tobacco".
100. Where a
committee’s work is closely related to that of
another advisory committee, they need to be clear who
has responsibility for what. This should be recorded
in writing. They should consider setting up a system
of cross-representation so that each committee
includes a member of the other, or asking the bodies
responsible for appointments to consider doing so.
This should have the effect of forging close links
between them and avoiding inconsistencies of approach
in related fields.
Other
advisory committees provide advice about alcohol,
tobacco and caffeine. ACMD risk assessments and
regulatory options evaluations are inconsistent
with these scientific committees.