We all remember John Prescott dancing – well, wobbling – to D:Ream's election anthem Things Can Only Get Better as Labour was swept into power in 1997. Thirteen years later the band's keyboard player, Brian Cox, has become a professor of physics and passionate science activist, and leads a small army of scientists and science advocates who are fed up with the party after a series of very public rows about things such as drug policy and science funding.

Has Labour learned from its mistakes?

As with the Conservatives, Labour's manifesto places great emphasis on linking science with business, and indeed its responses to our questions came from business minister Pat McFadden, rather than science minister Lord Drayson. One promised initiative would seek to increase the supply of science and technology graduates, creating what Labour calls a "technician class" providing employees for hi-tech industry. In terms of its broad approach to the position of science in society, it's difficult to find air between Labour and the Tories.

Brian Cox: Science funding

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

Two questionable statements are made in Labour's response to our question. First, the suggestion that the debate is no longer about saving British science is an arrogant one that dismisses serious concerns in the research community. Second, the assertion that "investment in science and research" has doubled in real terms is highly dependent on what figures you include, and ignores the fact that spending as a proportion of GDP has remained static. Research continues to be something that is paid for out of the Treasury's loose change.

Past record aside, Labour's pledges are as vague as those of the other parties, with no manifesto commitment to preserve the science budget. Science funding will be ring-fenced, but we don't know how big the enclosure will be.

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 Department of Health has yet to give its response to the Science and Technology Select Committee's damning report on homeopathy, but under a Labour government its views would apparently be irrelevant. Labour states that it would not take a line on alternative medicine, but would rather leave the decision to local trusts.

A revealing comment is that "the availability of suitably qualified/regulated practitioners" would be taken into account in decisions on the provision of treatments. Labour has been active in promoting the creation of alternative medicine quangos in the past few years, which means it is helping to give credibility to quacks and increasing their chances of infiltrating our health services. The fact that hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money have been poured into alt med lobby groups like Prince Charles' Foundation for Integrated Health – now defunct after being involved in fraud and under investigation by the Charity Commission – raises serious questions about ministers' judgement.

Simon Singh: Libel

What will your party do to reduce the chilling effect of our libel laws on science?

Nothing controversial here, with Labour part of the cross-party consensus on libel reform. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the British Chiropractic Association for its generous sacrifice in making reform of our libel laws possible.

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?

In contrast to all the other parties, Labour provides very specific and credible plans for energy, although of course it has greater access to the necessary information. Increased nuclear capacity would begin to come online by 2018 (although the cost of this is not mentioned), with a target for 15% of energy to come from renewables by 2020, including plans to construct up to 6,400 new offshore wind turbines. Labour also demonstrates an understanding of the economic rewards to be reaped from turning Britain into a world-leading centre for green technology, with a particular emphasis on marine and tidal energy.

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?

"It is for government to consider that advice and then to make policy decisions taking into account all relevant factors."

In saying this, Labour demonstrates that it has not understood the criticism it received after Nutt-gate, and positions itself firmly alongside the Conservatives in believing that no amount of evidence can ever trump political ideology. What makes this an even more bitter pill to swallow for many on the left is that Labour's political ideology in this area appears to be the same social conservatism as that of the Tory party.

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?

As with the other major parties, Labour supports animal testing and understands its necessity, correctly pointing out that "no validated and established laboratory methods are available to totally replace animal experimentation." It is also worth mentioning Labour's decent record in this area, with a ban on the testing of cosmetics on animals, and the protection of great apes.

Petra Boynton: Public health

How will your party ensure public health/education campaigns are underpinned by evidence, and how will you evaluate their success?

Labour is good at making the right noises on public health campaigns:

"We have put in place tough performance targets in key areas like childhood obesity and the success of interventions is monitored closely. We also track performance in areas like smoking cessation."

The problem is that targets and performance measures aren't necessarily the same as properly controlled trials of the sort that the Lib Dems and Conservatives propose, and it's hard for independent researchers to evaluate their success if methodology and data are not openly published. While the other main parties are looking at policy improvements in this area, Labour seems happy to continue with the status quo, which is disappointing.

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?

"A Labour government will always keep an open mind on the publication of data from this sector where there is strong public interest, but we have no immediate plans to force this type of disclosure."

When is the disclosure of information about the efficacy of drugs not strongly in the public interest? A disappointing answer, once again indistinguishable from the Tory position, which gives a free pass to pharmaceutical companies.

Conclusions

On the positive side, we have reasonably coherent and detailed plans for tackling climate change and building up energy security over the next 10 years. Labour also joins a broad political consensus on GM technology, stem cell research, libel reform and animal testing; and it is no worse than the other parties when it comes to the future of science funding.

The problems are many, and can be clumped into two broad groups. The first group includes science funding, drug policy and pharmaceutical regulation, where Labour's approach seems virtually indistinguishable from Conservative policy. In fact it's notable that if you take many of Labour's answers, you would be hard-pressed to tell which party they came from.

It takes a remarkably pro-business line, which manifests itself in a refusal to put proper scrutiny on pharmaceutical companies, and an attitude that seems to regard science as almost a subset of business. Meanwhile on drugs, we are faced with another potential government that believes the ignorant views of Daily Mail columnists should be considered on a level with expert scientific advice.

Then we have the disappointment of Labour's policies on public health and alternative medicine, which both seem to be "carry on as before" in spite of voluminous evidence and criticism suggesting that this is not a sensible approach.

The problem with Labour isn't its previous record on science. We all make bad decisions, and so do governments, but the measure of a good government should be its ability to learn from its mistakes, and improve policy accordingly. The problem is, quite simply, that it hasn't. And so, for many, science has become yet another reason to desert Labour.

Best candidate



Andrew Lomas, candidate for Wycombe, is tackling a PhD in cancer biology and drug design, but finds time to engage with science activists. He challenged his party's treatment of David Nutt, and described homeopathy as "a stinking pile of uselessness".

Worst candidate



Alan Johnson. While arguably a number of Labour MPs hold even more worrying views, his treatment of Nutt epitomised the clash between science and ideology in politics in recent years.