Green party answers questions about its science policy

Scott Redding
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 29 April 2010 13.06 BST

A rosette on a Green party worker canvassing in the Primrose Grove area of Norwich

The Green party says it is no longer opposed to GM research, only multinationals' application of the technology. Photograph: Si Barber

The party requested that we publish a short additional statement addressing concerns we raised last year about its science policies in the runup to the European parliamentary election:

The Green party is currently in a process of overhauling and reassessing our science and technology policies in order to make them more robust. We want to ensure that these policy areas articulate the principles and ethics of the Green party while also standing on a strong evidence-based foundation.

As part of this process we have recently completed a radical overhaul of our health policies which was extremely encouraging. This saw us adopt far stronger policies in areas like complementary therapies and stem cell research and we're intending to approach the science and technology chapters of our policies in the same constructive fashion.

Brian Cox: Science funding

Do you plan to maintain Britain's science budget below the European average?

We are keen to see a radical commitment to manufacturing jobs, including research, as part of our Green New Deal. We want to see the UK build on our reputation as a world leader in applied technologies like renewable energy and climate research. The Green party does not have an overall plan on exactly how much the national spend on scientific research should be, but by investing in skills and jobs we hope to see these industries flourish.

Alternative medicine

If the balance of evidence suggests that a treatment does not perform any better than placebo, should it be supported by the NHS?

The short answer is No. Our policy is that any medicine or treatment available on the NHS should be backed up by scientific evidence. Some new treatments, and some currently available on the NHS, will pass this test, others will not.

Simon Singh: Libel

What will your party do to reduce the chilling effect of our libel laws on science? Currently there is no statutory public interest defence, so scientists risk running the gauntlet of London's High Court if they publish material they believe to be in the public interest, but that a major corporation or litigious charlatan believes to be libellous.

The Green party policy places a strong emphasis on the public interest and any measures which act to deny the ability of journalists and others to raise issues of public concern need to be addressed. Green party leader Caroline Lucas is a signatory to the Libel Reform Campaign pledge which states that, "Freedom to criticise and question, in strong terms and without malice, is the cornerstone of argument and debate, whether in scholarly journals, on websites, in newspapers or elsewhere. Our current libel laws inhibit debate and stifle free expression. They discourage writers from tackling important subjects and thereby deny us the right to read about them."

Climate change/Energy

Should nuclear power be part of our country's strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions? How soon can we bring new plants online?

It is easy to focus on creating renewable energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the biggest contribution is likely to be in reducing the energy used – building quality, insulation, LEDs rather than fluorescent lightbulbs, reducing the need to travel and doing it in low-carbon modes.

This has to be our priority.

For the energy still needed after reduction strategies are in place, Britain has some of the best renewable resources in the world: enough to meet our energy needs several times over. Furthermore, these are zero-carbon, are affordable, can be built quickly, would remove the need to import any fuels, are free of toxic waste, would bring jobs and world-class manufacturing into this country, and bear no catastrophic risks.

Britain does not need any nuclear power. New plants could not be brought online quickly enough to help meet the 2020 carbon targets needed to make a difference to climate change, let alone the expected power shortages in 2015. Devoting resources to this now merely detracts from the effort to reduce energy use and develop renewables.

David Nutt: Drug policy

To what extent should drug policy be based on scientific evidence? What evidence, if any, would you require to declassify a drug?

Independent scientific advice needs to be just that. It needs to be truly independent, which may at times be politically inconvenient, and it is advice – not policy – which has to take into account many social and political factors.

This government's refusal to tolerate advice which does not fit its political agenda has not only undermined its drug policy, it has also undermined its ability to get any impartial scientific evidence on which to base future policy.

When making the assessment on whether to declassify a drug the Green party looks to both the potential harm a particular drug can do to an individual and the harm that prohibition may do, leading to an unregulated, unlicensed supply of that substance.

We need to weigh up any possible health risks from a particular substance against the social harm of criminalising, for example, millions of cannabis users.

In a great number of cases this means declassification, and the Green party believes that we need to reassess decades of failed drug policy and begin to treat these issues as part of health policy rather than a policing issue.

Animal testing

Is animal testing necessary? Are the ethical concerns outweighed by the benefits? How would you like to see regulations on animal testing change under your government, if at all?

We agree with the independent patient safely organisation, the Safer Medicines Trust, that animal testing may be more harmful than helpful. There are many non-animal alternatives available to researchers, but lack of investment and a historical reliance on the use of animals mean they are underutilised.

The Green party would invest in these alternatives and ensure the UK was at the forefront of this developing industry.

Petra Boynton: Public health

How will your party ensure public health/education campaigns are underpinned by evidence, and how will you evaluate their success? PR companies are increasingly influential in directing both the content and delivery of public campaigns, frequently at the expense of expertise from scientists, healthcare providers and academics.

Over the last decade, we have seen a plethora of new campaigns and programmes in both the health and education sectors, with little evidence to support them before their instigation, and few post-implementation reviews. This has led to frustration on the part of professionals in those areas, and it is questionable that the best use has been made of the vast resources poured into these sectors.

Campaigns should be piloted and evaluated, using comparative before-and-after surveys or other means of measuring public awareness, and rolled out to wider populations only if shown to be effective.

There is little need for PR companies in these areas, and more use should be made of public relations skills employed directly within the public sector.

Genetic engineering/Stem cell research

Should Britain be at the forefront of research in these areas? What benefits do you believe such research will bring for society?

The Green party enthusiastically believes that stem cell research will lead to real advances in health care. This exciting area of research needs proper funding and political support both in the UK and internationally.

While the Green party is more sceptical about the way GM crops and gene patenting has been applied by multinational corporations like Monsanto, we are not opposed to GM research itself.

Here we draw a distinction between the application of a technology, which we believe has been proven to be socially destructive, particularly in the developing world, and ongoing scientific research which should be unhindered by political parties or governments.

Where GM research reaps rewards this is a benefit to the scientific community, but we do not accept the self-serving claims of multinationals that GM crops can solve world hunger, the fuel crisis and any myriad of global problems.

Ben Goldacre: Pharmaceutical regulation

Do you believe pharmaceutical companies should be forced to publish all the research data they have on the potential benefits and harms of drugs they manufacture?

Drug companies, and indeed all scientific research institutions, should be required to publish publicly all relevant research data.

International legislation on intellectual property rights holds back medical research and hinders the ability of poorer nations to produce much needed drugs cheaply. The information should be regarded as public property not commercial data.

Transparency and information-sharing are essential to boost confidence in the pharmaceutical industry and help prevent fraud.

Pandemic readiness

Do you believe the swine flu pandemic posed a significant risk to Britain? What action would your government take if a similar situation emerged in the future?

It's difficult to say, and better answered by a public enquiry than a poll of political parties. However, the fact that the impact on Britain was low does not mean that there was no risk. A Green government would listen to the best advice it could get and take appropriate action from that.