More mature politics

[nae99]

I hope that in the years to come there will be a more mature politics around science. At times, at the moment, it seems a bit like a playground with lots of different groups with strong vested interests trying to influence the agenda. I think it would also help if we had a science minister for longer than a few months, like when Lord Sainsbury was the incumbent.

[Lobro]

Modern politicians are typically just PPSs with no experience in practical money-earning professions. They are only interested in their career prospects and obeying the Whip. The ministers and cabinet have no real knowledge of their subjects or responsibilities - just a blind following of their party's tactics. They choose advisers who are known to be Party followers who tend to be single-issue activists reciting the mantras of their 'faith-based' issues - without any deep knowledge. What chance does science or technology have against this background.

Part of the 'prospective candidates selection process' should be a requirement for evidence of study of some technology, science or solid professional training other than 'Politics' at some time in their lives. I think that requirement would eliminate more than 75% of the present incumbents - whatever their Party. A similar selection process should be applied to potential 'advisers' as well.

[Mr Sensible]

I guess it's healthy for a democracy that lots of different people try to influence the agenda.  What seems to be lacking though is 'scientific literacy' amongst politicians.  The nature of their job demands that they be generalists, but I'm often frightened by their lack of understanding.  What about a crash-course in basic 'scientific' understanding for all prospective MPs?

[JohnPB]

I totally agree with the previous 2 comments - scientific understanding, and intellectual rigour, are damagingly absent within the political system.  I have thought for some time that the Office for National Statistics (ONS) model was something that the scientific community could usefully copy and attempt to use within the scientific arena.

So, how about forming an "Office for National Science & Engineering" (ONSE) charged with providing information to government and the public about the degree to which scientific research and intellectual rigour supports the various beliefs, initiatives, and pontifications of the political classes as they arise?

There are many examples one could mention, but how about an easy starter in the area of "bird flu" and the dreadful waste of money which the government spent on stockpiling 25 million doses of Tamiflu to protect, presumably, the public sector in the event of an outbreak?

[Hivi]

An ONST sounds good but I suppose the Royal Society could serve this function. However, it is said that Mrs T, wishing to replace coal as our main energy source with nuclear, asked the RS to investigate potential Global Warming. She gave them some money for the investigation and they found Global Warming!

Whether this is true or not, it underlines our one big problem. It's the politicians that fund research and the scientists have to find the money to research their interests. If you are applying to the TSB or Research Council for funding then add 'Global Warming' to your title and you are much more likely to get the money.

At the same time, we have to watch out for the mantras and catechisms of those faith-based eco-warriors who ignore the facts. Politicians, with a five-year field-of-view ignore these folk at their peril. Just look at the policies that subsidise wind-farms even though all Grid Operators have warned about the lack of stability when the output power varies as the third power of the wind speed. Just ask your MPs if they know what happened and why, at 22:38 on 4 Nov 2006 in Europe? At least 15 million homes lost electricity for over half an hour!

[Brosville]

pish tosh and rhubarb! - by far and away most "science" is funded by the multinational forces of darkness - the agrochemical, pharmaceutical and GM companies - this is of course carefully orchestrated so that they get the "results" that are in their interests, there is virtually no "pure science" research being done, it is not in their interests.
Add to that the fact that their lobbyists have virtually bottomless pits of money to "incentivise" politicians, and you have a recipe for the total subversion of the purity of both science and government

[Beth]

Interesting idea for forming an "Office for National Science & Engineering" (ONSE). Not many people realise we have a Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor John Beddington, and a network of professional scientists and engineers working in the civil service or on advisory committees to provide science advice to help inform, scrutinise and challenge policy.
Check it out here: http://www.dius.gov.uk/partner_organisations/office_for_science

It would be great to see their advice to Ministers published alongside every new policy announcement!

[calvin227]

Democracy doesn't exist, if it did everyone's opinion would count equally!