whoyg2793

Scientists quit government drugs body over David Nutt sacking

The Government is facing mass resignations from the official advisory body on drugs after the sacking of its chairman, The Times has learnt.

Two members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs quit yesterday in protest at Alan Johnson’s dismissal of David Nutt in a row over the relative harm caused by drugs and alcohol.

Les King, an expert chemist, was the first to resign. He said that the pearl jewelry Home Secretary had denied Professor Nutt his right to free speech and called for the council to become truly independent of politicians. He was swiftly followed by Marion Walker, a pharmacist and clinical director with the substance misuse service at the Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust.

The affair has led scientists to question the Government’s wider commitment to the independence of external scientific advisers, and raised fears that experts will become reluctant to sit on advisory panels.
Related Links

Scientists on the council are preparing a letter to ministers seeking assurances that they will remain free to set their agenda and to speak freely about their research and findings. It is possible the 28 remaining members will quit if their concerns are not addressed before a council meeting next week.

One of the country’s leading experts on drug dependence said that, without such assurances, it would be difficult for any scientist to succeed Professor Nutt as council chairman while retaining the respect of their peers.

In a letter to The Times, Ian Stolerman, Emeritus Professor of Behavioural Pharmacology at King’s College London, said: “All scientists who work without pay to advise the Government must surely be considering their positions. After this unjustified dismissal, anyone who takes over from Professor Nutt risks being branded by the scientific community as a wholesale pearl jewelry collaborator with a Government that has no respect for expertise.”

Lord Drayson, the Science and Innovation Minister, was not consulted or informed by Mr Johnson before Professor Nutt’s dismissal, despite his office being responsible for co-ordinating scientific advice across Whitehall. He was unavailable for comment yesterday, but said on his Twitter account that he would be “asking why he was not informed, getting facts, and finding a solution”.

Professor Nutt said that the council was no longer tenable as a functioning advisory group. “I can’t believe any self-respecting scientist would serve on it,” he declared. Writing in The Times today, he calls for the creation of a truly independent advisory council on drugs modelled on the way that interest rates are set by an expert committee.

Professor Nutt was sacked after criticisms he had made of the pearl jewelry wholesale Government’s drugs policy were published in a paper by the Centre for Crime and Justice at King’s College London. The comments were made in a lecture he delivered in July, in which he said that Ecstasy and LSD were less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes. He also criticised the decision to upgrade

undermine the euro and prop up the dollar

A curious kind of discourse keeps cropping up here in Moscow. It might be described as "praise of America, with an anti-American twist." Or as two-layered speech, "pro-American on the verbal level, anti-American in the subtext." I have come across it on a number of occasions – from professors, from students, among naive young people, among sophisticated elders from the elite. I have described elsewhere a particular incident of such speeches. Here I'd like to freshwater pearl earrings outline the logic of the speech, in four moves. In Move One, the speaker describes how patriotic the Americans are, how strong this makes America. This is praised as a role model for Russians. If only we could be without our self-flagellating intelligentsia! (It is not mentioned that America has a somewhat similar intelligentsia and a similar neo-conservative opposition.) Move Two indicates that this patriotism in America consists of looking out for America's interest – solely, ruthlessly and cynically, at the expense of everyone else. Move Three describes how America is pursuing its selfish interest. Whatever America does is in its own interest; while Russia is described as always screwing up, giving in to America and ignoring its own interests. Some American policy or other is used to explain a cynical scheme to akoya pearl necklace advance America's interest at the expense of other countries. Often a pretty weird explanation is given for American policies, one that Americans would dismiss as having no connection to the actual thought processes. Intervention in the war in Kosovo, for instance, is thought to be an attempt to destabilize Europe, undermine the euro and prop up the dollar. Never mind that this has no connection to actual American policy, or that the war has left Europe more stable and ended a long series of Yugoslav crises – which is what NATO intended. American generosity and efforts to help other countries are explained as a cover for selfish interests. American mistakes are also explained as clever schemes to realize American interests. When the consequences are the opposite of the ones attributed to America, it is simply added that the supposed scheme didn't work. No falsification of the hypothesis is possible; a priori, whatever America does is for selfish purposes at the expense of everyone else. The more generous an action appears, the more ruthless America's plotting. The John Birch Society's "principle of reversal" is alive and well in this brand of Russian thinking. Finally, Move Four adds that Russians should do likewise and think only of their own interests. Russia should be strong like America. It should destabilize the Middle East to twisted pearl necklace raise the price of oil. And, of course, Russia should hit back at America with schemes for realizing Russian interests at America's expense. In fact, hitting back at America seems to be the main motive for this entire verbal construct. Russians get to praise America and satisfy their anti-American urges at the same time. They can get away with unlimited cynicism and avoid any accusations of anti-Americanism, as long as they put it under the guise of praise. It also serves as a cover for some pretty weird Realpolitik schemes for Russia – the sort of things that would be likely to blow up in Russia's face if ever attempted. Russia will not be able to pursue its world interests, including gaining American co-operation, if its elites are not able to understand America with a modicum of accuracy. If Russians retain a cartoon picture of America, one that excludes America from sincere co-operation about anything; if they are unwilling to notice shared interests and if they never try to persuade Americans to support Russian interests, the country only hurts itself. Attacking America is becoming almost a national sport, something people compete in doing, a way to show off one's patriotism and rise in the establishment. Russians cannot hear a word of what Americans say through the thick layers of stories they tell each other about America. There are many, many Russians in the foreign affairs elite who think in this self-defeating way. They form an entire sub-elite, one that seems almost dedicated to confounding the interests of its own country as long as it can hit away at America at the same time. There is, of course, also an American sub-elite just as willing to confound America's interests for the sake of hitting away at Russia – the same ones who brought us the Taliban. Fortunately, there are other Russians who know better – including, evidently, President Vladimir Putin. Last month he read an extraordinary lecture to Russia's entire class of ambassadors, telling them, in effect, to potato pearl cut out the anti-Western nonsense and start focusing on Russia's real interests. Among those real interests, he pegged close relations with the West as top priority – United States first and Europe next. His foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, added for good measure that threats to Russia come not from the West, but from the south. We will see what effect it has. It would be a good time for President George Bush to give a reciprocal lecture to some sections of the U.S. federal elite. Ira Straus has been Fulbright professor of political science at MGIMO, the Foreign Ministry-connected State Institute of International Relations in Moscow.

Once the necessary security has been

ST. PETERSBURG - The anti-war trio of Russia, France and Germany pushed Saturday for the United Nations' supremacy in rebuilding Iraq but toned down their criticism of the United States, with French President Jacques Chirac voicing hope that fractured ties with Washington would be mended. Russian President Vladimir Putin hosted Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder at a hastily arranged summit dominated by the Iraqi crisis in Russia's former imperial capital of St. Petersburg. On Saturday, the three leaders wrapped up their two-day gathering by opening a seminar on security and international law. "Once the necessary security has been pearl strand restored, the United Nations should play a central role in ensuring that Iraq regains its sovereignty and that the Iraqi people recover their dignity and their freedom," Chirac said at the start of the seminar. "There can be no lasting international order based on the logic of power," he said, adding that a leading U.N. role in Iraq would help "allay the popular feelings of frustration in the region." Schroeder said the United Nations is crucial for bringing "legitimacy" to postwar reconstruction efforts in Iraq. "We must use the United Nations' experience in this country," the chancellor said. "The legitimacy of the restoration of the state and economic structures can be ensured only through international law." Chirac, Schroeder and Putin led the diplomatic opposition to the U.S.-led military campaign in Iraq, and the issue badly strained their nations' relations with the United States. Nevertheless, Chirac said Saturday that he was pleased with the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. "Condemnation of the dictatorship was never the issue. France and all other democracies welcome its fall," Chirac said. "Our dispute was about how to manage the world and its crises, particularly proliferation crises." He also signaled a desire to potato pearl mend the rift with the United States. "We can rebuild our unity around the values that all great democracies share. This spirit of solidarity and collective responsibility should emerge strengthened from this crisis," Chirac said. "I'm convinced that the international community can once again agree on its fundamental values." Putin said the crisis highlighted the need for modernization of the United Nations and the entire system of international law. "In recent times, many shortcomings of the existing international law system and serious contradictions have emerged, which create a serious potential for conflict," Putin said. "If we had effective mechanisms for solving crisis situations, we would be able to more effectively solve the most acute global problems, and, what's especially important, do so without acting beyond the law." Schroeder's visit to twisted pearl necklace St. Petersburg had been planned long ago, but the summit was hastily transformed into a three-way affair following a meeting of U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair earlier this week. Bush and Blair said the United Nations should play a "vital" role in rebuilding Iraq but that its role had not been defined. U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz flatly told a Senate panel Thursday that the United Nations "can't be in charge." Putin responded positively Friday to Wolfowitz's suggestion that Russia, France and Germany forgive Iraq's debt, saying Moscow was ready to consider the issue as early as June at the summit of the Group of Eight leading industrialized nations in Evian, France. Schroeder said the debt issue could only be discussed within the Paris Club of creditor nations after Iraq forms a legitimate government.

Russian prosecutors canceled an arrest warrant filed

Russian prosecutors canceled an arrest warrant filed against influential billionaire tycoon Boris Berezovskii last Wednesday after he promised to return to Russia and speak to investigators, Interfax reported. The general prosecutor's office issued the warrant for Berezovskii's arrest two weeks ago on the suspicion that he had laundered hundreds of millions of dollars from Aeroflot, in which he has a stake. The former member of the Kremlin inner circle was also charged with abuse of power and with taking part in other illegal business activities while in office at potato pearl a number of government posts. Russian Interior Minister Sergei Stepashin, a loyal deputy of President Boris Yeltsin, last week proclaimed that he would not arrest the controversial businessman if he returned from Paris, where he had been staying. Berezovskii promised to return to Moscow by last weekend. The Prosecutor General's office sent Berezovskii's arrest warrant to Interpol, the international police organization. Deputy Prosecutor General Mikhail Katyshev said Wednesday that he canceled the warrant because Berezovskii promised to return home and testify. He said prosecutors' moves in the future would depend on Berezovskii's "behavior." Berezovskii's lawyer, Genri Reznik, told prosecutors that they should not arrest Berezovskii if he refuses to pearl strand wholesale testify or makes political statements they do not approve of, which he has the right to do. Prosecutors had said they issued the warrant after Berezovskii ignored several subpoenas sent to him in recent months. Berezovskii said Prime Minister Evgenii Primakov cooked up the money-laundering charges against him to influence Yeltsin, the Russian media, and the country's secret services. He has been on the losing side in an ongoing and rancorous war of words with Primakov and members of his government. The battle apparently led to Berezovskii's removal from his post as executive secretary of the CIS, the loose alliance of former Soviet republics. Russian analysts also said that the warrant for Berezovskii's arrest, issued only days after he left Moscow, was an attempt to dissuade him from returning home and testifying against senior government officials who allegedly participated in his business deals. On April 11, in an extensive interview on NTV's Sunday evening "Itogi" news analysis program, Berezovskii said he was the victim of a plot staged by the Russian political elite. He described himself as an innocent figure caught in a massive battle for power driven by the forces of communist and nationalist opposition. He was particularly critical of Primakov , who has denied any role in the case. Berezovskii said Primakov was "softly speaking a bit of slyness" as part of a plot to pearl strand restore the Soviet empire. The mogul also repeated earlier demands to ban the Communist Party. He dismissed the possibility of a communist revival, but warned that Russian nationalism posed a much greater threat as it rooted in communist ideas.

To call for a halt to a hugely popular

To call for a halt to a hugely popular war in the midst of an election campaign, as liberal Yabloko leader Grigory Yavlinsky did late last year, would normally amount to political suicide. And so it very nearly proved to be. Yabloko only just breached the 5 percent threshold requirement for the State Duma (lower house of parliament) in December's elections, and the poor performance was sheeted directly back to twisted pearl necklace Yavlinsky's stance on Chechnya. To most observers, it was yet another example of Yavlinsky's political ineptness in the high-pressure environment of an electoral campaign. Yet now, as Chechnya descends into a bloodbath, it looks like an act of great foresight. The Yabloko leader is the only Russian politician who can, with both credibility and a clear conscience, run for president as an anti-war candidate, as a leader who stood against the tide of public opinion in an effort to protect the lives of young Russian men. Of course, none of the war's cheer squad among the Yeltsin hacks, or Union of Right-Wing Forces (SPS) as they call themselves – Sergei Kiriyenko, Boris Nemtsov and so forth – will be running for the presidency. The rank opportunism of the "liberal reformers'" position on Chechnya during the Duma campaign paid dividends – allowing them to race past Yabloko in the parliamentary vote. In the finest Bolshevik tradition of "the end justifies the means," the young men dying today in Grozny served their purpose for SPS in December. Nemtsov recently cited SPS' patriotic stance as one of the key reasons for the bloc's success. In contrast, Yavlinsky, for all his other faults, took an honorable stance on Chechnya. In doing so, he sacrificed short-term electoral advantage for the long-term credibility of his political movement – and, in a sense, for the maintenance of pluralism in Russia. Pluralism, because there have to akoya pearl necklace be opposition voices in a democracy, and if Russia is ever going to have a functioning civil society these voices must be raised and the population given options at elections. That was the scariest part of the recent Duma campaign. Almost no other voices of dissent from the Kremlin line were heard (Yavlinsky, it must be said, was somewhat halting in his opposition to the war, but it was a dissenting voice nonetheless). And positions like those of the Yabloko leader will, in the end, help Russia really move from being a country where the majority of the population is treated like subjects to a situation where they are treated like citizens. For that reason, Yavlinsky has proved a much greater Russian patriot than the pro-war chest-thumpers like Anatoly Chubais and Kiriyenko. After all, Yavlinsky's call for a halt to the all-out military campaign was hardly that of a "peacenik." He supported fighting off Shamil Basayev in Dagestan; he supported taking the fight to Chechnya in order to establish a security zone up to the Terek River inside the republic (to protect neighboring regions). He then called for special operations against terrorists inside Chechnya, rather than a full-scale military assault, in order to minimize civilian casualties. For that he was branded "a traitor" by Chubais, who proceeded to freshwater pearl earrings attack Yavlinsky for his stance on Chechnya at every opportunity, riding on the wave of pro-war hysteria through the course of the Duma campaign. But now, the position that hurt Yavlinsky so much in December could provide the Yabloko leader with an excellent opportunity in the forthcoming presidential campaign. As public opinion begins to turn against the mincing machine in Chechnya, Yavlinsky is free to use his position on the war as a fundamental pillar of his campaign for the presidency. Young men dying is a terrible thing to have to use for political purposes – however, it was not the Yabloko leader who unleashed the war as an electoral strategy but the pro-Kremlin forces. Yavlinsky must now harness his principled stand on Chechnya as a political weapon to fight his opponents. Doing so will not mean kowtowing to hypocritical Western leaders – it will mean a platform of standing up for the Russian people. He will not win the presidency. He will not even make it into the second round of the election (if one is required). But at least it will prevent the presidential campaign from becoming a procession in which the acting president will not have to pearl necklace answer any tough questions on his conduct in government. In taking such a course, Yavlinsky would be doing a further service to his country.

Congratulations!

If you can read this post, it means that the registration process was successful and that you can start blogging