As extreme weather conditions and Al Gore have taught us - oh well, maybe not for the slow learners - everything you can imagine is politically, culturally and socially malleable. Science is, more often than not, the dog being wagged by the tail.
That's the way politicians, and the public like and insist it should be.
In the UK, top drug-dude, David Nutt (and yes, don't we all just love that name), a genuine expert in all things druggie - licit and illicit - an expert in neuropsychopharmacology no less, so no-one can accuse him of stepping outside his narrow intellectual jurisdiction: drugs are his jurisdiction - well, Nutt has been sacked.
The media line is that Nutt "embarrassed" the government with some of his comments.
What the media and the government are failing to admit is that Nutt's cold, hard, objective truths were discombobulating to one and all and that the best and most reliable method of silencing truthful statements is to shoot the friggin' messenger with something high caliber. So they did.
He was done within days of making the not at all startling suggestion that all drugs are dangerous and that restrictions placed on them should be proportional to their potential harm. Not a radical thought by any stretch. Except that 'proportional' would entail the legal substances alcohol and tobacco heading toward the top of the list of drugs that should, by objective standards, be classified as more dangerous than, say, marijuana, LSD or ecstasy.
This explains why experts are proportionally more likely to lie to their managers, politicians, journalists and themselves. To save their jobs and/or their funding.
Beware of experts who still have a well paid job.
UK sacks top drug adviser