Political science: be careful what you vote for

With Labour, the Conservatives and even the Lib Dems tainted by the MPs' expenses scandal, minor parties such as the Greens and UKIP are hotly tipped for a breakthrough in the European elections on Thursday. The Greens' robust policies on climate change, in particular, will make them appear an attractive option to many science-minded voters.

But be careful who you vote for. A stronger Green representation in the European Parliament could be pretty disastrous for science.

You probably knew that the Green Party is implacably opposed to nuclear power and GM crops -- though each might have an important part to play in containing global warming. But did you also know that its manifesto pledges "an immediate ban on the harmful use of animals (including but not only primates) in research, testing and education", and the abolition of all zoos?

That isn't all. The bloggers Martin Robbins, of The Lay Scientist, and Frank Swain, of Science Punk, have questioned all the parties on several aspects of science policy, while the HolfordWatch blog has reviewed Green manifesto pledges on healthcare. A summary of all the major parties' health policies is also available on the Campaign for Science and Engineering website.

Some of the Greens' proposals are staggeringly extreme for a party that supposedly aspires to the mainstream.

Two examples stand out. It wants to ban all experiments on embryos, including those designed to improve fertility treatment as well as embryonic stem cell work. And its policies on alternative medicine are the height of naivety. The Greens' spokesman told Robbins and Swain:

We want the gradual inclusion of complementary therapies within NHS provision so that patients have access to all available and appropriate treatments. Complementary therapies can often prevent the situation worsening and thus save resources.

There was no mention at all of whether these complementary therapies actually work. The party is also opposed to any regulation of alternative practioners, beyond the voluntary schemes operated by their industry bodies.

As HolfordWatch puts it:

A number of aspects of the manifesto are strikingly flawed, to the point of being offensive. Many people rely on the NHS – and for a serious party to come up with a health policy this bad is frankly insulting.

The Greens, alas, are still very much a single-issue party, and that issue certainly isn't science. That is particularly worrying in the European arena, because MEPs are becoming increasingly important to regulatory decisions that affect science. In recent years, poorly thought-through European directives on clinical trials, electromagnetic fields, human tissue and animal experiments have all threatened to derail important medical research. Their damaging implications have been headed off in part by sympathetic MEPs who responded to lobbying by scientific and patient groups. I wouldn't count on Green representatives to deliver similar support. 

The problem with voting Green is that you won't just be voting in favour of taking climate change seriously. You'll also be supporting a flaky science agenda that could do real damage.

Comments

[Sian]

That's so depressing. I'm pretty serious about climate change in my day-to-day actions-but I'm also a science student, a rationalist and someone who's seen the horrifying bad side to patients being given complimentary therapies that do not work-and the Greens have a good chance of getting in in my constituency. Never simple, choosing who to vote for.

[Katie Lee]

Urgh, how depressing. I'm an eco-bore and would have considered voting green, but I complementary therapies on the NHS is a TERRIBLE idea. Might just as well chuck in some voodoo remedies while we're at it.

[Hannah Devlin]

Check out latest EU election result projections by LSE political scientists:
http://www.predict09.eu/default/en-us.aspx

[Dan Wilson]

Here's another interesting policy statement from the Greens:

"A pledge will be introduced
by which all scientists and
technologists will promise to respect
the Earth and life upon it."

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/downloads/mfssst.pdf

[Annie]

~This is such a lot of vitriol I can't believe it. 'Scientists' are quite capable of being blinkered, eg. thalidomide and the discover of ulcers being caused by bacteria as just two examples. 'Science' means that the population are being over-medicalised (nice for drug company profits) eg. by mass prescription of statins with attendant side effects and ignoring the fact that individual metabolisms are different. I heard a consultant on Radio 4 lamenting just this situation. Wonder why so many terrorists are actually 'science' graduates, because they can't be bothered to think with an open mind. The point is that we need to think in entirety about how we live and that includes not abusing other species or going down Frankenstein like paths without thinking of the consequences. As for improving fertiility with embryo research, do any of you seriously think the world needs more people???????? For God's sake oh except you wouldn't like that, for Dawkin's sake?

[Patrick Harvie MSP]

As an elected Green, representing Glasgow in the Scottish Parliament for six years, I hope you'll take some feedback here. I recognise that the Green movement has taken some time to develop from a single issue group, and perhaps in some areas we've some way to go yet. But I'd argue that the Green approach is often more evidence-based than other parties - though I accept that we're not perfect. The best way of supporting our continued development is to subject us to parliamentary scrutiny, so that our policies can be tested alongside the rest. You may even find that our views on GM or nuclear are actually economic. Finally, please remember that there are Green parties throughout Europe - the Scottish party certainly doesn't share all the positions you've cited here.

[Gordon]

Outing myself as a Scottish and English Green from the very beginning, ask yourselves, how many parties have a democratic policy-making mechanism? How many parties have a publicly available body of policy that they refer to when making political decisions or constructing election manifestoes?

This policy can occasionally be strange or out of date and that is one of the negative aspects of having policy decided by the membership at conference.

But it's far better than having politicians making up policy on the hoof.

If we remove references to Homeopathy from our manifesto, our policy will be fixed. Any other party can change their policy back and forth as they please without consulting the membership.

[Steve]

Interesting article but some selective quoting:
"ban on the harmful use of animals" - yes it's in the manifesto.
"abolition of all zoos" - partial quoting: "The abolition of zoos (except for the benefit of the animals concerned)
"ban all experiments on embryos" - misquote: "ban on all cloning and genetic manipulation of embryos, whether for research, therapeutic or reproductive purposes"
"complementary therapies within NHS" - yes, but NICE have also suggested this - admittedly to the distain of professionals - see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6368290.ece

So, perhaps not as bad as the article makes it out to be.

[Mark Henderson]

Green opposition to embryo research isn't a misquote. This from Scott Redding, Green Party spokesman, to Frank Swain and Martin Robbins:

"The Green Party believes that experiments on human embryos could have unforeseen outcomes harmful both to individuals and to society."

[Dan Beames]

"Wonder why so many terrorists are actually 'science' graduates, because they can't be bothered to think with an open mind."

Well, you've certainly ensured that I'll never take anything you say seriously. What on earth drove you to write that? As for "abusing other species" - How many scientists do that, in any way? Very, very few.

Medical research and scientific advance require truly open minds, and I think your childish, knee-jerk reaction shows that you are more closed-minded than the people you're trying to defame.

[Nicholas Swetenham]

In response to Annie

1) The discovery of ulcers being caused by bacteria was done by scientists.

It is one of the many examples of individual scientists working tirelessly against established opinion for the benefit of mankind.

2) Genetic modification is merely an imitation of a natural process of gene transfer.

3) Embryo research = stem cell research. It has the potential to make people with spinal injuries walk again, among many other things that would seem like miracles to us today. It is nothing to do with fertility.

[David Board]

It seems somewhat to be an example of doublethink on the part of the Green party to suggest that dubious and unproved therapies should be unregulated whereas demonstrably beneficial technology should be clamped down on and, in some cases, even banned.

The Green party seems to be the only major party to be serious about tackling the large scale environmental problems on this planet, but they are so misguided in their proposed methods that I cannot vote for them.

[Steve]

Clearly the greens oppose some aspects of embryo research, but I've not seen a quote that supports Mark's claim that they want to "ban all experiments on embryos".

[Adam Ramsay]

I am an active member of the Green Party, but this policy is frankly moronic. It is not a manifesto commitment, so MEPs elected this year will not be pushing for it. Please consider what Greens parties are going to prioritise rather than some out dated policy the party hasn't got round to changing.

[Adam Ramsay]

I'm another Green. I don't agree with the policies you list here. I'll still be voting Green. Frankly, I don't believe that elected Greens will prioritse these things (and I say that knowing many of the candidates). Also, as Patrick Harvie, Scottish Green co-leader - says above, Scottish Greens do not support many of these policies...

[Charlie]

Unlike doctors and their hypocratic oath,, scientists have no obligation to a moral code. Hence we have chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. In GM we have a gross warping of natural processes, whereby animal genes are implanted into plant DNA. In medicine, we have scientists eagerly feeding the global domination of pharmacutical corporations with cures for symptoms with built in obsolescence (resistance) wjile causes go untreated. Animal testing has led to serious disabling human side effects. As for zoos, some methods of confinment of wild species for public entertainment is patently barbaric and injurous.
I glad at least one political party has the guts to question the moral status quo that permits such a blatant disregard for decency and respect of all living things.
GO GREENS you got my vote

[Iain Coleman]

"how many parties have a democratic policy-making mechanism?"

The Liberal Democrats, for one.

[Tim Turner]

Depressing to see Green Party policy misrepresented this way.

Eg Green Party policy on embryonic stem cells clearly refers to "cloning and genetic manipulation" of embryos and not to fertility treatments. It's also the case that the policy allows for use of adult stem cells and this is where the cutting edge research (and most promise for safe treatments) currently appears to lie.

On animal experiments, you fail to mention that: "Government research funds will be transferred from animal tests to superior non-animal technologies, including epidemiology, computer models, micro-dosing, DNA chips, Microfluidics chips and the use of human tissue. Greens would also fund more research into prevention of disease, looking at diet, environment, family history and lifestyle." So what is anti-science about that?

I won't start on GM and nuclear power, but I hope everyone realises that opposition is based on the massive and long lasting potential risks involved and not on an 'anti-science' stance.

I would concede that Green Party health policy could say more on the efficacy of alternative therapies, but then some of the more enthusiastic Holford Watch members might do better looking at the efficacy of many treatments available on the NHS. They might be shocked at how ineffective - and downright dangerous - some drugs are despite having passed 'rigorous' tests.

[Neil]

@Steve
It's the quote you posted earlier

"ban on all cloning and genetic manipulation of embryos, whether for research, therapeutic or reproductive purposes"

If the genetically manipulation of embryo's is banned then embryonic stem cell research cannot take place.

And the second paragraph of HE246 in teh green part manifesto makes it quite clear that embryonic stem cells are being targeted.

"...However, the use of 'adult' (or 'mature') stem-cells has promise for both research and therapeutic purposes and does not involve the same risks and ethical issues as embryonic stem-calls."

Luddite fools.

[rob]

I have been of the 'green' persuasion all my life (from a scientific, rather than 'tree hugging' mindset), and given the current political climate I was seriously considering actually voting for them for the first time in the forthecoming elections. Thank you for revealing this information (which my subsequent investigations have supported; it is easy enough to find the sources if you are sufficiently diligent). No way will they get my vote now. How sad that this is the case.

[tom]

God, what a bunch of nutters. I'm all for taking climate change seriously but they need to get real over this other stuff. I voted for green already (postally) and am starting to wish I didn't.

Still, at least they won't get too many votes altogether, so there is little chance of them donig all this stuff (I hope!)

[Tim]

The Green party is patently a misnomer at the best of times. Their traffic strategy is not green, it's merely anti-driver; symptomatic of a gullible unthinking populace that throws its hands up screaming "all cars are bad!" without considering what people really want - to get places with the convenience of a car, without causing pollution, so why not fund positive research into hydrogen fuel-cells instead?

While I'm here, I heard a very stupid idea being discussed on Radio4 - that of UKIP & Green being a "protest vote" because people don't approve of the financial scandal; in the same show, it was also mentioned that people dislike the way the EU governs. And yet they never put two and two together and said that if you vote willy-nilly out of "protest" then the governance will only get worse!

[Ed]

I had also decided against voting Green in the future based on the Lay Scientist questionnaire responses. I am heartened by the responses of some Green party members that this isn't a high priority issue for the Greens in the whole of Europe and that not all party members are that backward.

In response to Tim Turner, chip technology and epidemiological studies are not *alternatives* to animal testing; they are different stages in the same research arc. Typically a number of therapeutic targets will be identified using microarray chips, these can then be investigated in cell and then animal models. After that you can begin clinical trials. Epidemiological studies can only assess the effect of traits which are widespread in a population. eg. drugs which are already routinely prescribed (and have passed animal test stage already) or lifestyle facors like smoking and diet.

I think there are a lot of scientists who have Green leanings so the party would do well to ditch these proposals which, if implemented, would see the UK's entire medical research community move to the States...

[Ed]

Oh, and Tim, as for computer models – the field in which I work – I *wish* they were superior to animal tests. Unfortunately they are far from that. Indeed the data from animal experiments is essential to validate hypotheses which are generated by computer models. Again, not an alternative but another string to the bow.

[Anthony]

I am a scientist using rodents for my research, which aims to eventually treat people suffering from epilepsy. This research would be impossible if animal experiments were banned. "Harmful use of animals" needs a clearer definition. None of the animals I work on suffer. A very strict home office ensures that, and if scientists break these rules we get a serious punishment.

[Tom]

@ROB

Rob I appreciate you concern and largely agree with your criticisms (even though I am a Green). However, I do not think it is a good enough reason not to vote Green.

A stronger Green party is desirable because of how we could influence decision-making on things like climate change and other areas where our policy can appeal beyond the party.

From my experience the sorts of Greens who get elected to positions of power will not push these sorts of policies. Although a separate party, the Scottish Greens are an example of this (the fact that they don’t share many of these policies is most likely down to having been represented at Holyrood for almost a decade and subjected to Parliamentary scrutiny).

Even I'll admit voting Green is, at least in part, a protest vote. It will be interpreted by those in power that you want something done on climate change, not a ban on embryo research or more alternative medicine..

[Alex]

I thought long and hard before joining the Green party, and I must confess that the attitude towards 'complementary' therapies was and is a real concern. However on a broad range of policies the Green Party is well ahead of other parties - the main parties are quite happy to let religious groups have a free hand in schools for example, whereas the Greens would remove prevent such groups from running publicly funded schools. Is religion in schools a good thing for science?
And if we want to talk about other anti-science positions, how about Labour and the Conservatives' response to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs' recommendation to downgrade Ecstasy? A clear case of an evidence based policy recommendation being completely ignored for political purposes - the Greens have a far more nuanced and realistic approach.
Yes we should challenge the problem areas identified in the article (I certainly will at the next conference) but don't ignore the grey parties damage to science in other areas.

[Me]

"so why not fund positive research into hydrogen fuel-cells instead?" - I really can't see hydrogen as the right answer for an alternative fuel.

But also - because our obsession and addiction to cars is a problem with or without pollution. It creates large areas of suburbia that encourage more car use. Out of town shopping areas and office parks that can only easily be reached by car. Thus we become completely reliant on having a car for daily life - which whether powered by hydrogen, electric or fossil fuels is still a very inefficient way to transport yourself a few miles. Made worse by the distances becoming bigger as the requirements or parking space and road capacity pushes everything further apart.

Reducing the need for cars in daily life (compact walkable and cyclable urban areas with mixed use, centralised shops and facilities, local shops, etc) would be a huge benefit regardless of how any car was powered.

[Charlie]

I'm considering voting Green. This article is a strong reason not to, but sadly every party has areas of seriously flawed policy and it may be that the Greens' would be the least damaging.

[Vivien Pomfrey MSc]

I am a long-term Green Party member and medical scientist, and helped to formulate our policy on vivisection. We are most certainly not anti-science or scientifically naive as a party although, as with all parties, there are members who may sometimes express views which are not quite in line with our policies and which may be naive or wrong. The Green Party is different from the main parties in having the courage and imagination to 'think outside the box' and embrace scientific progress rather than the current profit-driven, corporate-dominated inertia.
Please don't be misled by misrepresentations of our policies. If you want real, radical progress in science, you should be voting Green.

[Richard Lawson]

Instead of reading second-hand accounts of what our political opponents say that we say, how about looking about what we actually do say? Here: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/mfssst.html

[Caroline Allen]

As a Cambridge educated scientist, veterinary surgeon and Green Party candidate for London in tomorrow's elections I would like to re-assure potential Green voters that the Green Party is not anti-science, as this misleading and extremely biased article is trying to suggest.
Firstly on health; complementary therapy encompases a whole range of different treatment modalities, some of which are now being recognised as having proven benefits, often when used in conjunction with conventional medicine. Those which have been proven should be available to all who can benefit from them, not just those who an afford them. Do we really need to make the explicit point that these treatments must work, I really think that goes without saying, except when you are trying to write a hatchet piece perhaps? If you read our full policies you will see we would create a regulatory agency for natural medicines. In addition we make it clear that decisions on treatment availability and drugs prescribed within the NHS would be evidence based.
On the whole issue of animal experimentation it is certainly true that we are against animal testing and our MEPs will work on the current EU directive to minimise the harmful use of animals, but no we won't be able to ban it. The current dogma that being anti-animal testing equals being anti-science is quite damaging and I believe it is actually limiting progress and innovation. I could write for a long time about the problems with animal testing, but I think it is probably better to direct those who are interested to the Dr Hadwen Trust.
I can also assure you that there is plenty of science, common sense and economics behind our decisions on nuclear power and GM.
If the author still thinks we are a single issue party he clearly hasnt done his research, our MEPs have worked on a wide variety of issues; from workers rights to equal opportunities, health, farming, public services and the economy, to name a few.
Please dont make up your mind based on this article, visit our website and see for yourself what really makes up our positive vision.

[Shelly Willetts]

Greens have actually been decades ahead of the other parties with regard to, for example, renewable energy, recycling and organic farming, which the grey parties regarded as eccentric and impractical until they finally embraced them. Far from being Luddites, as some persist in assuming, we are extremely progressive in our scientific as well as social and ethical policies.

Regarding Green policies to animal experimenation, it's encouraging that Green Party Leader, Dr Caroline Lucas, is Patron to Safer Medicines Campaign (www.safermedicines.org) SMC is an independent patient safety organisation of doctors and scientists who question the value of animal experiments today. Their goal is to protect human health by promoting human-specific medical research.

I would agree with Mark Henderson, however, that "You should indeed be careful what you vote for" So why vote for parties that take so long to catch up?!

[Chris Lawson]

Caroline Allen, Vivien Pomfrey, et al.: "How dare you misrepresent us by quoting us accurately and in context?"

Did you not bother to check the links Mr Henderson provided?

[Martin Robbins]

As one of the authors of the original Guardian article and research, I am bemused by the attempts to people like Caroline Allen and others above to try and spin their way out of this criticism.

Frank and I did this in a spirit of open honesty, and posted the full, unedited answers we were given on our blogs for all to see. The idea that we have misrepresented the party is frankly absurd - we have posted their own words next to ours for everybody to see.

Taking some of the specific points:

GM: The Green Party's manifesto and their statement to us both indicate that huge swathes of biological research in the UK would be banned, primarily due to banning the import of any GMOs. We all take the risks seriously, but this is not following the precautionary principle, this is simple stopping research into an area that could have benefits in the future.

A geneticist working with us question the party further on this point, at which they admitted that they hadn't really devoted much effort to consulting with scientists, and suggested that "maybe we ought to in the future."

Health: Caroline Allen is misleading aboe when she talks about creating a regulatory agency for natural medicines - the Green's reply (posted full and unedited by us) states that no external regulation will be allowed - all regulation must be carried out by the professions themselves. Quacks regulating quacks, to put it bluntly.

Caroline also fails to understand that by definition alternative medicine has either not been proven to work, or been proven not to work. If it is proven to work, it is called "medicine", and it should be regulated and legislated as any other medicine would be.

Anyway, I want to finish on this point to the Green party representatives commenting here. By all means disagree with our assessment, but please do not accuse us of misrepresenting your views. If you feel that you have come across badly here, then rather than blaming us you should look very carefully at the output from your press office, and at your manifesto.

[Martin Robbins]

Further to my last comment, I'd like to quote the Green Party themselves on alternative medicine, so that readers can see for themselves how accurate Caroline Allen's comments above are:

"We would oppose attempts to regulate complementary medicine, except by licensing and review boards made up of representatives of their respective alternative health care fields."

http://layscience.net/node/581