Dave Watts is a bit of a geek. He works as a computer programmer for Calderdale Council in Yorkshire and he wants every MP to read The Geek Manifesto.

"I was partway through reading the book and it dawned on me that this should be on every MP's desk," says Watts, who is asking members of the public to sponsor a copy of the new book, which exposes politicians' mishandling of science.

One example detailed in the book is the sacking of Professor David Nutt from his role during the last government as chair of its Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Nutt's evidence-based advice to keep cannabis in class C of the drug classification system was overruled by the home secretary. Then, when his research suggested that LSD and ecstasy were less harmful than alcohol, he was asked to resign.

The Geek Manifesto's publishers have now offered half of the 650 copies needed, meaning Watts needs only 53 further pledges. "I am hoping that we might collect all the books together," says Watts, "go to the Houses of Parliament and get the geek-friendly MPs like David Willetts to come out and accept them."

Of course, parliament already has rather more conventional routes via which MPs are kept abreast of science and the scientific method. Lord Oxburgh is preparing to embark on an evaluation of these mechanisms, two of which are explored here.

Chief among them is the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), which publishes briefing notes and holds seminars on current and upcoming science topics. Scanning the horizon to cover issues as wide-ranging as video games, genetic testing and energy, POSTnotes are produced in consultation with scientists, NGOs and industry.

Pooling input from such a variety of sources, and a focus on accuracy and clarity, mean POST commits great effort to remaining neutral. "Of course POST doesn't always get it right," says one MP, who also told POST in an anonymous survey that its function is valued among parliamentarians. "But it gets it nearly right in terms of being impartial."

One external consultant who provided advice for a POSTnote published this year, however, argues that it wasn't even "nearly right". She says: "I was surprised and indeed fairly horrified when I saw the final draft POSTnote, which was factually inaccurate in many places and frankly misleading in others. I am pretty sure the original must have been fairly sound so I could only suspect that it had been subject to dubious – perhaps politically motivated? – editing."

POST could not reply to anonymous comments, but did respond by stressing its commitment to scientific and political impartiality. So POST tries its best, but its task is next to impossible due to the degree of uncertainty in science. Dr Tamsin Edwards, research associate at the University of Bristol, has worked on four POSTnotes regarding climate science. And she has been impressed. "Scientists are always wanting to put all the caveats in," she says. "We've asked POST to put them in and they have done."

Of course, POST's work is only worthwhile if parliamentarians make use of it. According to POST's 2009 survey, 80% of parliamentarians said they had referred to the POSTnotes more than once. But four of the parliamentarians surveyed had not even heard of the service. And the House of Commons Survey of Services 2010 found that 38% of MPs said they did not use POSTnotes or seminars.

So it might seem that the office requires some internal promotion within parliament. And Dr Chris Tyler, who takes over as head of POST this month, is perceived by MPs and science policy academics as the man to do it.

Formerly the executive director of the University of Cambridge's Centre for Science and Policy (CSaP), Tyler has helped to connect the policy world to scientists through a fellowship programme. He is expected to build on such schemes to raise POST's profile and improve parliament's handling of science more generally.

Although Tyler has ideas on this, he says he's going into POST with "a blank sheet of paper". He will spend a few months surveying the ground and finding out how best to serve parliamentarians, bearing in mind that POST works alongside the select committees and the House of Commons Library, which responds to direct enquiries from parliamentarians for information.

This ecosystem of science advice in parliament also includes the all-party Parliamentary & Scientific Committee (P&S), which is set to make changes over the coming months too. Chaired by Labour's Andrew Miller MP, the committee has a reputation as being rather useless when it comes to informing parliament of science topics, mostly because so few MPs ever turn up to its meetings.

So efforts are under way to sex up the committee. First: Brian Cox, whose scheduled appearance at a forthcoming meeting is designed to pull in a larger audience from the Commons.

The committee's next tactic will be to cover science that is targeted at specific MPs. That's the plan of Professor Alan Malcolm, who has just taken over as executive secretary for the P&S. Malcolm hopes to build a database of science hooks for various constituencies, and then schedule meetings on these themes. The example he gives is a possible meeting on marine safety in the centennial anniversary of the Titanic, targeted at MPs from constituencies with ports. "MPs are swamped," he says. "So my job is to think of a way to get through."

The P&S is not only seen as irrelevant but also unwilling to grapple with debate. While POST takes great pains to remain neutral, P&S meetings would seem to provide the perfect forum for discussion. And yet April's P&S meeting (pdf) on high-speed rail dodged opposition altogether.

When Miller moved to close the session and allow members to slip into the drinks reception, he was interrupted by a campaigner from Ealing Against HS2, who protested against the meeting's "skewed" agenda. Miller managed to shout him down, and the drinks reception commenced – not before the activist had stormed out, overcoat collar erect.

Malcolm thinks he can turn things around. "I do want to have different points of view," he says. As such, next week the committee will tackle animal research and include contributions from people who are for, and people who are against, animal testing.

But Dr Victoria Martindale, a freelance spokesperson for several animal welfare campaigns, is not impressed. "This is a joke," she says, explaining that the planned meeting does not represent a balance of views because three speakers are scheduled, with only one against animal experiments.

When Martindale realised she was not invited to next week's meeting, she phoned the clerk. "In the end she admitted to me that her concern is 'trouble'," Martindale says, "by which, of course, she means opposition, vigorous debate, examination, evidence and campaigners." Martindale has now been invited, having received instructions not to speak at the meeting.

As the P&S and POST know, science is never easy in a democracy. But this series has found no shortage of individuals trying to smooth the route that science takes into parliament, from Watts at the grassroots all the way up to Tory MP Adam Afriyie, whose plan to give science lessons to MPs will be detailed in the conclusion to this series of articles next week.