Vote science

UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

Scientists are hopeless when it comes to politics. The reason lies in an insight that can be found in the introduction by John Carey, Professor of English in Oxford, to his wonderful Faber Book of Science. He points out that it is not religion that is the antithesis of science, but politics. Science is about understanding the world and the acquisition of reliable knowledge, whereas politics is a sphere of opinion "constructed out of preferences, which it strives to elevate by the mere multiplication of words, to the status of truths." Politics relies upon conflict, science advances when understanding is achieved.

So, how do the parties view science in the run-up to the election? I phoned the press offices of the three main parties and asked them to send me their policies on science. Reading them is a confusing experience.

The Conservatives did not send me a future policy statement but rather recent Conservative thinking which, unsurprisingly, is full of self-praise: there is no brain drain; government funding of research and development (R & D) is not falling; and the UK is a haven for scientific inward investment

Referring, apparently to the same country, Labour describes R & D falling behind our competitors. "The Tory years have seen a dismal decline across every sector of the nation's science." A similar line is taken by the Liberal Democrats: underfunding of science threatens to erode what has until recently been Britain's strong point - the quality of its science base.

Hold on, the Conservatives say the science budget is 30 per cent higher in real terms now than in 1979. Differences like this on such a fundamental point are not the equivalent of scientists arguing over, for example, the age of the universe. Agreement would eventually be reached. Not in politics. I have not the foggiest notion where the truth lies, or how to find out; but someone is lying. Here is where to look for fraud.

What I do know is that there's anxiety in academia and industry that science in universities is in danger. Facilities are often poor and more and more high-quality research is being done in institutes outside universities. Without a strong science base in the universities, science in this country will decline. And there is a a further danger that some of the institutes which have been the source of so much brilliance will be dulled down by privatisation and commercialisation. The tragedy is that the effect is slow and insidious, longer than the lifetime of any government. Worse still, when it is at last recognised it will take even longer to repair.

The same applies to teaching science in schools. It can be argued that the present A-level system which requires an early choice between science and the rest is the greatest barrier to achieving a scientifically literate population. On this issue, Labour and Liberal Democrats are most encouraging.

Labour gives special attention to raising public awareness of science, and the government's record on this has to be applauded. But while I do not understand what policies win votes, I am sure that science will hardly be visible in the coming election.