Drs Huppert and Harris take questions from the floor
Science and policy have been the topic of much debate over the past few months, particularly in the run up to the Comprehensive Spending Review. George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that the science research budget would be ring-fenced over the coming four years, issuing the statement that science is vital.
Friday 19 November saw two of the most vocal and respected science supporters in Parliament speaking at the Centre for Science and Policy in Cambridge. The first was Dr Evan Harris, a medical doctor who was Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford and Abingdon until his narrow defeat in the May 2010 election; the second Dr Julian Huppert, a research scientist at University of Cambridge, and Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge.
The event was filled with lively debate and insightful discussions, which covered all aspects of science and Parliament.
Initial speeches from the pair praised the work done by the Science is Vital campaign with Dr Harris encouraging researchers to launch more campaigns off their own backs and make their voices and opinions are heard. Dr Huppert said the campaign brought the issue to the forefront of the most influential minds, and when a “spare £200 million” surfaced during discussions, Nick Clegg suggested it be put into science.
However, both Dr Harris and Dr Huppert argued that there was much more that needed to be done. Various examples of parliamentarians who do not understand science, or are unwilling to accept the merits of scientific research were given, including Conservative MP for Bosworth David Tredinnick’s now infamous comments that surgeons do not operate on a full moon “because blood clotting is not effective”.
Neither speaker thought the problem was necessarily due to a lack of scientists in Parliament, though Dr Huppert is one of only two MPs with a PhD in a science subject. Dr Harris said that without teaching them to respect and understand science and evidence there was a risk that terms such as ‘evidence based policy’ could be over- or mis-used.
After the speeches the debate was opened up to the floor. Questions focused on the media’s role and influence on Government policy, the difficulty of encouraging the country’s future scientists with reduced funds for both research and education and, again, Parliamentarians’ grasp of the scientific method.
At the end of the evening one thing was clear from both the speakers and audience – science plays a critical role in everyone’s lives, and it is likely that the debate over the future of science in Parliament will continue for years to come.
Djuke Veldhuis and Beki Hill interviewed Dr Harris and Dr Huppert at the event for Elements. Tune in to hear the politicians’ take on the transition from scientist to MP, their views on the ring-fenced science budget, where they think science policy will go next and to get more information about Dr Harris’ latest project…
Bookmark on Delicious- Digg this post
- Print for later
- Tell a friend
Other Elements articles in which you might be interested:
I don't know about the merits of some more PhDs in Parliament; however, first things first, perhaps slightly fewer balding, white, middle-aged men with expanding waistlines and narrowing minds? Not a terribly fashionable point of view and definitely exposes me as a lefty but so it goes. These broader, more diverse, minds may grasp the point that science can guide the debate but mustn't define the policy - politics is too muddied with ideology and the will of the electorate to be solely founded on evidence from the lab. A greater appreciation of what science can and cannot tell us is required.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Elements, Rebecca Hill. Rebecca Hill said: @DazzMcGuinness You're too generous. In fact, if you go to @elementsscience you will see my latest addition… http://bit.ly/f3CQzl [...]