Science and politics

The dramatic election outcome has given the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats the chance to bring together the best bits of their manifestos on science. Leila Sattary looks back and asks whether science was really on the political agenda, if science policies made a difference in the public vote and what happens next.

With the way that politicians talk about science you would think that the science budget is safe and sound – science is the backbone of the economy, science will bring new jobs through emerging green technologies, science will save the day.

Largely thanks to pressure from the Campaign for Science & Engineering (CaSE), all major parties outlined their manifestos for science ahead of the election and it looked like science was finally on the political agenda. Labour and the Liberal Democrats committed to ring fencing the science budget while Conservative plans were less specific. Parties made commitments relating to the academic freedom and the Haldane Principle, university-business institutes and expert scientific advice to the government. In the end, the main parties put forward fairly detailed plans with many positive signs of change. Meanwhile, UKIP provided some worrying thoughts on science, including complete denial of climate change and calls for all climate research funding to cease as well as dismissal of pandemic threats. With UKIP winning no seats, at least science is safe from this type of thinking.

With scientists mobilising, the Liberal Democrats even tried to harness the science vote with their “Geek the Vote” campaign which built on their strong policies on science and their plans to abolish university tuition fees. The party science policies were heavily covered in the mainstream press. Yet the word “science” was only mentioned four times by the party leaders in the televised election debates. Surprisingly these mentions were all by David Cameron, who even said we should invest in the UK’s science base.

When it came to voting, the people spoke, and science certainly did not swing the vote. Many science advocates were lost across all parties including Liberal Democrat science spokesman, Evan Harris, who lost his seat by just 176 votes in my neighbouring constituency of Oxford West and Abingdon. The House of Commons’ scientific understanding is certainly lessened and by these losses and new faces like David Tredinnick, the Conservative who supports astrology and homeopathy.

While the science community mourns its losses from the House of Commons, new forces have been appointed to look after science. David Willetts has been appointed Mister of State for Universities and Science in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) with Vince Cable as Secretary of State for BIS. Although the budget cuts are still looming, it is clear that no science sector that receives public funding is safe from cuts. David Willetts said in a recent press conference that “science can’t expect to be exempt from cuts.” However, he has a strong grasp of science and the importance of the right balance between blue skies and applied research. We will have to wait and see how prepared he is to protect science and if he will weather us through the storm.

So I ask; did the science vote actually make a difference to the election? Unfortunately, probably not. Despite the heavy media coverage, it is clear from the election results and the loss of science advocates, that science was not a public priority. If we want science to truly be on the agenda we need to somehow capture the public will and support. I am sure that knocking 30% off the science budget would not cause as big a public outcry as 30% off the NHS budget. After all, the politicians should listen to public priorities but whether the public really understand the impact of science on their own lives is unclear to me. Could science ever be as close to people’s hearts as war, health or immigration?  I hope so but, as this election has shown, science has a long way to win the hearts and minds of the British public.