THIS month I had a new experience: I was front-page news. When I announced my intention to stand in the UK general election, reporters got in touch immediately. The idea that someone with a PhD in quantum physics would be interested in politics seemed so far-fetched that it made the .
OK, so it is hardly The New York Times. Hinckley is a small town in the English midlands, part of the Bosworth constituency where I am a candidate. But the question remains: is it so far-fetched to think that scientists might be willing to get involved in politics?
Not in Germany, where Chancellor Angela Merkel holds a doctorate and has research experience in quantum chemistry. In the UK, however, things are a little different.
Advertisement
In the last parliament, only 27 members out of a total of 650 held a science degree; 584 members described themselves as having no political interest in science and technology, according to figures from political research organisation . Some, such as the Conservative MP I am standing against, David Tredinnick, are positively anti-science.
鈥淚n the last UK parliament, 584 MPs described themselves as having no political interest in science鈥�
When the House of Commons science and technology select committee examined the scientific evidence for homeopathy and deliberated on its use by the National Health Service (NHS), it concluded that homeopathy does not provide value for money, even as a placebo. Tredinnick, an ardent advocate of homeopathy, has since led an effort to get the report鈥檚 conclusions dismissed.
This is an arrogant and irresponsible stance. For one thing, Tredinnick鈥檚 constituents have a right to have their tax money spent wisely and accountably. There is another point here, too: Tredinnick clearly thinks that the scientific process on which entire economies, industries and civilisations have been built carries less weight than his personal beliefs.
Unfortunately, Tredinnick鈥檚 anti-science attitude is proving dangerously infectious. So far, he has convinced 70 members of parliament to sign his motion against the homeopathy report. It is only a short step from there to finding 70 MPs who are willing to dismiss scientists鈥� research into climate change. Or to back the idea that the NHS should consider including astrology as a means of diagnosis.
That sounds ridiculous, doesn鈥檛 it? I only wish it were a reductio ad absurdum, but I am actually recounting something Tredinnick himself has suggested. This MP, who has been in a position of power, authority and influence for more than two decades, even used his MP鈥檚 expense account to buy astrology software and training for its use.
When this emerged, he repaid the money. But he stands by the concept. Last month, Tredinnick told another local newspaper, , that, because healthcare systems in India and China have linked medicine and astronomy for centuries, we should consider doing it too. 鈥淎re we really just dismissing their views?鈥� he asked.
I don鈥檛 need to answer that here. What I do need to point out is that we tend to hold our politicians to too low a standard.
As a human being, Tredinnick is not unusual. Many people hold beliefs that others regard as irrational or eccentric. But very few get to exercise their beliefs in votes on government policy that affect the allocation of scarce resources. Wouldn鈥檛 it be good to know that those who exercise that privilege do so from a position of scientific understanding? In a scientific age, we need scientifically literate representatives.
So where are they? Judging by the blogs, Twitter feeds and other forms of communication that the internet provides, it is clear that scientists are extremely interested in politics. But how many are interested enough to get their hands dirty?
Not many. , a physicist at the University of Cambridge, is standing for election. Ex-biologist is standing for re-election, as is , a doctor who routinely stands up for science. And now there is me. Maybe there are more, but not enough to counter the influence of Tredinnick and his ilk. Despite my campaign, he is defending a large majority and is the to win 鈥� and may well be sitting on the government benches rather than the opposition ones after the election on 6 May.
Of course, scientifically inclined people don鈥檛 have to stand for election to have a say in politics. Voting for the party whose manifesto recognises the importance of science and offers the tightest ring-fencing for the science budget makes sense.
But manifestos are made for elections, not for the difficult periods when government departments are wrangling over money. The big question is this: will there be enough scientifically literate MPs in positions of influence when the campaigning is a distant memory and realpolitik has taken over? There certainly won鈥檛 be many.
It is worth pointing out that people trust scientists. In surveys of public attitudes, scientists have always been hailed as . In an age of cynicism about politics, that trust is an incredible asset.
My manifesto is simple. I am standing to highlight the fact that the current spread of politicians鈥� interests doesn鈥檛 reflect the population they are supposed to represent. Science is not just an indulgence for the curious. It is vital to our life, culture and economic well-being. The Hinckley Times got a lot of things wrong 鈥� it described me as a 鈥渢op scientist鈥� for a start 鈥� but it got one thing right: it is surprising to have scientists get involved in politics. It shouldn鈥檛 be.