So now we understand the purpose of Government advisors. Whilst it would have been reasonable to assume that they existed to provide advice on important issues from acknowledged experts in their field, we now know better.

From the fall-out of the sacking of David Nutt the Governments chief drugs advisory on the Drugs Advisory Panel, we can now see that it would seem that the real purpose is to give credibility to Government policy. 

The sacking of David Nutt was an incredible over reaction from a Labour Government clearly now extra sensitive about every tiny aspect of public policy so close to an election.

The decent thing for Brown to do would be to re-instate David Nutt with a formal apology. That however is unlikely to happen. The real damage as a result of the mishandling of this whole affair is that it’s now highly unlikely anyone will take any notice of any other advisors. Why should they? How do we know that it hasn’t all been agreed in advance with the appropriate Government Minister.

Most sensible people would have accepted that there is a place for science and a place for politics. That whilst it is right and proper for scientific advice to be furnished to Ministers and Government, it is also right and proper that a fuller judgement is made by Ministers based upon other factors as well – and yes that may well include public opinion.

BUT, in doing so the Government has to be honest and transparent about how it makes its judgment, it needs to acknowledge the advice given and explain the overall rationale behind decisions , not try and cover up the real reasons and seek false explanations.

The whole shady affair reminds me on a grander scale of the attempt to prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

It has damaged the credibility of Government advisors and the Goverment yet further.What a mess.