Evan Harris says politicians need to stop, think and weigh up the scientific evidence before jumping to policy conclusions

[This article is based on a speech made by Dr Harris in a debate on the Science and Technology select committee report, Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence Based Policy Making, and the Government response thereto]

As well as being my party’s spokesman I am a member of the Science and Technology Committee, and I was involved in this inquiry. I also have an interest in evidence-based policy making and in the outcome of the inquiry’s recommendations. The inquiry itself was lengthy and extremely thorough, and our detailed report contained a number of recommendations.

As the report makes clear, if a policy is made on the basis that it is in line with scientific evidence and such evidence is not published, insufficiently published or selectively published, or does not appear to back up the policy, government and, indeed, other political parties can be criticised. Policy must be introduced with a statement that is honest and transparent about the extent to which it relies on science. I have caused trouble in my party by requiring such statements.

I look forward to policy announcements from the Conservative party. I believe that the reclassification of cannabis from C to B will be flagged up in a forthcoming policy document. I should be fascinated to know what evidence there is that such a reclassification will do anything to reduce consumption and improve matters. All the evidence suggests that if cannabis is to be criminalised, it belongs in class C. There was no increase in cannabis use when it was reclassified from B to C, and that reclassification allowed policy to become more rational and more easily understood by those with whom we needed to communicate.

Both the Science and Technology Committee and the Joint Committee on the Human Tissues and Embryos Bill are looking closely at scientific evidence. I believe that reports should benefit from science checks of that kind. The Joint Committee will consider the policy of removing anonymity from gamete donors, which is a very contentious issue. I hope that its report will make it absolutely clear whether the evidence suggests that it would have any benefit or whether it seems likely to be counter-productive in increasing secrecy and damaging gamete supply, in which event people would not be able to be treated and no child would benefit in the long run.

Dr Ian Gibson has raised the religion issue in respect of stem cells. People with religious views bring something valuable to the table: an ethical perspective. I also have an ethical perspective, which happens not to be religious. People can debate matters such as stem cell research, and where we stand on them will be determined by our principles and ideology.

However, I urge the government to be cautious about people who dress up their ideological views-both religious and not religious-as science, such as those who argue in respect of stem cells that everything can be done through adult stem cells and therefore we do not need to work with embryonic stem cells. That is simply incorrect. Such people must be asked, “If it turns out that work on adult stem cells is shown not to work or not to be effective, would you then support the use of embryonic stem cells?” Their answer is usually no. There is a danger of pseudo-science being promulgated to dress up what are perfectly valid ideological, religious or moral views. Such views have a place in these debates, but they should not be confused with science.

The government have been fortunate in having benefited from the last two excellent chief scientific advisers-Lord May and Sir David King. Their reputations in the science community and among the media and the broader public have done much to underpin the Government’s credibility on science matters.

I wish to raise with the Minister a couple of issues that were addressed in the report. There was a recommendation to do with the double counting of non-scientific opinion. Scientific responses to consultations often put forward the science and then also say-as the Royal Society recently did in responding to the government consultation on embryology, and especially inter-species or hybrid embryos-“This is the science, but we must of course bear in mind the fact that there will be public worries about it, so perhaps we should be cautious.” However, the anti-science or non-scientific evidence-I do not use those terms pejoratively-often does not give any credence to the scientific side and says, “We say 100 per cent. that we must not do this as it is wrong.”

Therefore when the scores are added up, there are one and a half bids for caution and only one bid for going ahead on the basis of the science. When there is considerable lay membership on scientific advisory committees, there is a danger that we get diluted scientific advice instead of pure scientific advice. So when the government consider such advice along with that of other stakeholders-which is the right thing to do-the result is a dilution of the scientific message. The government recognised that that was a problem and undertook to do something about it.

I also seek elucidation from the Minister on the government’s policy on publishing evidence. The Committee’s report made it clear that evidence underpinning policy should be published. The government response states that they will publish that except in respect of freedom of information and data protection legislation exemptions. If those exemptions cover advice to government, that could catch all, or much of, the evidence that one would hope would be published when the government produce a policy. To be fair, it should be added that the government say that it is final advice to government that would be caught by freedom of information legislation. The government’s response states in paragraph 25 of the introduction:

“Inputs other than evidence...will influence policy outcomes”-

we have already accepted that. It continues:

“Nevertheless, where possible, the government agrees that processes should be transparent and the balance of evidence exposed. Transparency may not be possible in reserved areas. Examples of reserved areas include advice that precedes a final policy outcome”.

It is not clear to what extent that covers the evidence or the view taken of that evidence by a departmental chief scientific adviser, because the evidence is collected, the DCSA considers it and makes a recommendation to Ministers. It would be unfortunate if none of that process could be seen, especially the crucial latter stage. It is not clear from the government’s response what their plan is in that regard.

Politicians are in a privileged position, because they can think, take advice and try to find the scientific consensus on an issue. They do not have to jump on a bandwagon. MMR was handled correctly by the government and I was pleased to support them 100 per cent. at the time. Some Conservative Front Benchers at the time did not handle it correctly, because on public health issues there can be a high price to pay for political opportunism. Little could be done other than embark on the slow process of trying to explain to the media that the evidence for MMR causing autism simply was not there. While we cannot say that anything is 100 per cent. safe-and the government were right not to try to claim that, because that is also a dangerous thing to say-the approach had to show that the evidence base was clear. The fact that Andrew Wakefield is now up before the GMC on charges of serious professional misconduct in connection with his research is an extra factor, albeit many years later, that suggests that those of us who considered the overall scientific picture-and not just the newspaper headlines-were right on that issue.

The report mentions the precautionary principle and the problem of risk. We came to the view that the precautionary principle was an unfortunate phrase. Indeed, the chief scientific adviser said in evidence that the word “principle” seemed to imply some rule that whenever there was a potential risk, the government had to respond. The Committee were right to applaud the use by the government and the chief scientific adviser of the term “precautionary approach” and to make it clear that scientific progress must not be stopped because of a small potential risk.

The report went further and said that the government should lobby within the EU to change the terminology and approach taken by the EU-from the misunderstood term “precautionary principle”, which means different things to different people, to a much more fleshed-out view of what we mean by a flexible precautionary approach. I was disappointed that the government’s response effectively was to give up, saying that it was in too many international agreements and we would have to live with it. I think that the government should advocate change in that area.

In conclusion, I applaud the work by the members of the Committee. I hope that this important report will be one of a series of reports that the House will continue to receive from a cross-cutting Science and Technology Committee.

This article is based on a speech by Dr. Evan Harris in the Commons on 9th July 2007.

Dr Evan Harris is Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Science

The debate was opened by the chair of the Science and Technology Select Committee, Lib Dem MP Phil Willis. Click here to read Mr Willis’ speech

Please click here to watch Evan Harris’ speech on parliament live TV
(Note the video will only be available 28 days after the speech)