Brian Cox: Science funding

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

Britain's future depends on a vibrant research base and the ability of innovators to exploit the country's intellectual capital to generate new home-grown, high tech industries. Despite this, our national R&D spend as a proportion of GDP remains near the bottom of the G8. There is no room for complacency.

Because we believe that science is vital to our economic recovery, we have pledged not to cut the science budget in 2010-11. However, because of the current economic situation, we believe it would be irresponsible to make any financial commitments beyond that until the situation can be properly reviewed. We also recognise the true position the UK is in, which is not as labour describe.

This does not, however, mean we are suggesting cuts. Unlike the other parties, we have not protected any budgets - if we had, then it would be almost inevitable that non-protected budgets (like science) would suffer. We have also said in our manifesto that past Governments have been too obsessed with the City of London, and that instead we want to build "an economy based on innovation and sustainability". Science must inevitably play a key role in that.

We have also pledged to respect the science "ring-fence", where once the science budget is allocated through the Comprehensive Spending Review Process, it is not used for other purposes.

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?

Liberal Democrats believe that all health interventions paid for by the NHS should be as evidence-based as possible, so that patients get the best treatments and taxpayers get value for money. We have said that we would ask NICE to examine all Complementary or Alternative Therapies that may be being used on the NHS to see if their use if cost-effective.

If NICE's advice was that the treatment did not perform better than placebo, then of course it should not be supported by the NHS.

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.

Our party recognises the importance of free speech to science, as well as other fields. We don't talk about draft bills or more reviews we specifically say we would legislate to:

· Introduce a statutory public interest defence which covered responsible journalism, protected fair comment, as well as explicitly covering peer-reviewed work

· Prevent large corporations suing individuals for libel, as we believe the asymmetry of resources unbalances the legal system

· Bring in a single date of publication rule for the internet

· End libel tourism

· Reduce the costs of bringing and defending libel claims, while maintaining access to justice

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?

No – the evidence we have seen shows that nuclear power is an extremely expensive way to generate electricity, and would require at least a decade to come into effect. That's time we don't have if we want to play our role in stopping runaway climate change, but would therefore have to spend continuing to use fossil fuels.

We would prefer to use the enormous subsidies that would be needed for nuclear to invest in renewable energy and insulation, which would be a cheaper and quicker way of reducing emissions. You can find fully costed details of this plan in our manifesto.

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?

Drugs policy influences both public health and criminal justice, so it is vital that we get it right if we are not to blight the lives of thousands of people. Our approach is one of supporting policies which offer the best chance of reducing harm to individuals and to society, rather than stigmatising users or appeasing tabloid editors.

We would therefore classify drugs based on what the best scientific evidence. If the evidence suggested that the best way to reduce the harm associated with a drug was to declassify it, we would do so. We would make the ACMD properly independent and guarantee the independence and academic freedom of all scientific advisory committees by including in the ministerial code the Sense about Science-hosted principles without the Government's proposed adulteration.

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?

It is not a case of 'ethical concerns outweighing benefits'. It would be unethical not to do animal research, given the enormous potential and past benefits to medicine and public health that such research has brought. It has been vital in work on dialysis, diabetes, transplants, and the polio vaccine, to give just a few examples, and could be vital in the search for treatments for HIV/AIDS and malaria eradication.

We would maintain the current strict welfare standards on animal research, and support the replacement, refinement, and minimisation of the use of animals in research as far as possible, so that only the research which is completely necessary is done. We therefore oppose the use of animals in testing cosmetics or household products.

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.

Given that public money is spent on such campaigns, and public health is at stake, such interventions need to be as effective as possible. We would therefore use polling data collected before and after campaigns to evaluate their success in order to inform future campaigns, as well as Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) or other rigorous ways of evaluating the success of interventions. We would consult with expert scientists and medics in the initial design of such campaigns.

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?



Genetics and stem cell research show enormous potential for spurring advances in regenerative medicine, amongst other fields. Such work may be key to understanding and possibly treating diseases which blight people's lives, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, as well as traumatic injuries. These have obvious direct benefits to society.

But Britain's involvement and expertise in such research will also make us an international beacon for intellectual capital, enriching our research institutions and universities. We think this will inspire new generations of scientists to embark on careers in research, who will in turn make the medical and scientific breakthroughs of the future.

This is a free vote issue but Lib Dem MPs overwhelmingly supported this research, while Conservative MPs voted overwhelmingly against allowing such research during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act in 2008.

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?

Yes, they should. Studies have shown a publication bias whereby positive results of drugs trials are disproportionately represented. Public health depends on a good evidence-base, and a publication bias clearly skews that evidence-base. It is also in the interests of the pharmaceutical industry itself to be more and pro-actively transparent as the Vioxx episode shows.

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?

Politicians are woefully under-qualified to judge whether a particular virus poses a threat to Britain. That is the job of expert scientific advisers. Our Government would work with domestic and international health organisations to follow the best available advice from scientists in any similar, future scenario. We reject the idea that if a worst case scenario does not come to pass then the advice or policy was wrong. These are difficult risk assessment judgements at a scientific and policy level.