Myself and Frank Swain of Science Punk have questioned the leading parties ahead of the European Elections this week to find out more about their science policies. The results were interesting, and sometimes shocking. We've split our research into nine policy areas, listed below. Some are here, and some are over on Science Punk. Click on the index to take you to the policy area that interests you. (Now with full answers from the parties appended - apologies these weren't up sooner, but a few were missing still yesterday.).

ENVIRONMENT (SP)
ENERGY (SP)
OPEN ACCESS (SP)
STEM CELL RESEARCH (SP)
CHEMICALS (SP)
SPACE
ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE
GM FOOD AND RESEARCH
CLIMATE CHANGE
SUMMARY

Space:
We asked:

Last week Major Timothy Peake was selected as an astronaut for the European space programme. Where do you stand on the need for manned space flight, and how important is it for Britain to play in this process?

UKIP and the Conservative party failed to respond with any vision of space policy. The Conservatives in particular are surprisingly vague on the subject, criticising the government's support for manned space-flight while talking about the exciting possibilities of Britain's general involvement in space.

The other parties gave more detailed responses. Labour suggeste that they "have no plans to review our position on funding human space flight," with their policies focused on "commercial telecoms, navigation and Earth science." Business as usual then.

The Liberal Democrats made the valid point that Europe should focus on adding value to efforts by the US, Russia and China, rather than necessarily competing with them. The Green Party were cold on manned space-flight, and sought to "take the military out of the arena", while also wishing to increase funding to clean up the debris accumulating in near Earth orbit.

Overall then, there seems to be a broad consensus on space research that reaches across political parties and can be summed up as "keep doing what we're doing, but let's leave the human flight to the Yanks."

Conservative: No answer.

Labour: Major Tim Peaks appointment is great news. The Government agreed its funding, some €920 million, for the European Space Agency last November and we have no plans to review our position on funding human space flight. The UK’s Space research and its support of the European Space Agency focuses on commercial telecoms, navigation and Earth science all of which are areas in which the UK is world leading.

Lib Dem: Europe needs a common space policy and it is one of the issues for which it is agreed across the board in Britain that the UK can't do much alone. But Europe would do best to avoid re-inventing the wheel - its space programmes should add something new and be done in collaboration with other partners such as the US, Russia or China, rather than replicating previous US research.

UKIP: Whatever role Britain wishes to play as determined by the British Government of the day of course.

Green: Vital. Space should be a key part of peaceful scientific reasearch. We need to take the military out of the arena and also increase funding to cleaning up near Earth orbit which is becoming dangerously polluted with debris. Manned missions need to be only carried out where really
necessary. A lot of space research can be done robotically, saving cost. The new generation of space telescopes offer huge possibilities in advancing peaceful pure science research in to the understanding of our universe.

Alternative Medicine:
We asked:

Do you believe that complementary and alternative medicine has a role in public health care, and do you believe it should be subjected to the same regulations as conventional medicine?

We posed this question as a bit of a curve-ball, trying to see if we could draw out any weird and wacky answers from the parties.

Tim Worstall of UKIP gave the best response, pointing out that if 'alternative medicine' worked then it would just be 'medicine', while accepting that people should be free to spend their money on quackery if they so choose. Likewise, the Liberal Democrats - who gave consistently strong answers to our questions - warned of "quackery" and the need for consumer protection through regulation.

Labour and the Conservatives were silent on the issue, which is concerning. Neither seems to have a clear policy that we could find, and it is no surprise that this vagueness has been exploited by organisations like the CNHC ("OfQuack"), who are stepping in to fill the void with ineffective regulation of their own. As for the Greens, their answer on this was so bad that I'll be devoting an article to them later this week - stay tuned for that.

Conservative: No answer.

Labour: Lord Darzi’s Next Stage Review (NSR) of the NHS, ‘A High Quality Care For All’describes a 10-year vision in which extended primary care services are reshaped around the needs and influence of patients. Under practice-based commissioning, GP practices and other clinicians have a key role in supporting PCT commissioning decisions and need to promote an innovative/entrepreneurial approach to developing new services that provide better quality care, better health outcomes and better patient experience. However, when making decisions about health care, whether conventional or complementary/alternative, health care organisations and professionals need to consider issues of safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness and the availability of suitably qualified practitioners.

Lib Dem: While complementary and alternative medicines and therapies have many adherents, there have also unfortunately been cases of quackery and exploitation. From a consumer protection point of view it is therefore important to make sure that alternative medicine is adequately regulated.

UKIP: The two questions contradict each other. If they are to be held to the same standards as conventional medicine then they would have to prove that they are effective. Of course, if they manage to do this then they are no longer alternative or complementary, they are conventional medicine. So they should only be part of public health care when they are no longer alternative.However, if individuals wish to spend their money in such a manner then they must be entirely free to do so. Just because something is no more effective than a placebo doesn't mean that the citizenry should be banned from having it if they want to: on their own dime of course.

Green: Yes, we believe that complementary and alternative medicine has a role in public health care. The Green Party, for example, is in favour of increased funding for research on methods of integrated conventional and holistic treatments for cancer. We want the gradual inclusion of complementary therapies within NHS provision so that patients have access to all available and appropriate treatments. Complementary therapies can often prevent the situation worsening and thus save resources. We would oppose attempts to regulate complementary medicine, except by licensing and review boards made up of representatives of their respective alternative health care fields.

GM Food and Research
We asked:

The field of genetics has the potential to improve human health and nutrition, but many people are concerned about the effects of genetic modification both in humans and in agriculture. What is the right policy balance between the benefits of genetic advances and their potential risks?

Of the minor parties, UKIP called for a greater understanding of the risks, while the Green Party asserted that any risk would outweigh any possible benefits of research, and stated that they sought to ban any sort of GM organism from entering the UK, essentially the luddite option.

The three main parties have formed a broad consensus on GM policy that essentially follows the precautionary principle as it's stated in EU policy. In other words they agree that GM could be beneficial, but that it is not a magic bullet for world hunger, and that those seeking to commercialise the technology must demonstrate its safety. These answers were pretty fair, and it was encouraging to see that the three parties demonstrated sufficient knowledge to go beyond our question and make a range of pertinant points related to food security.

Conservative: The Conservatives recognise the important role of technology to strengthen food security but we are aware of the public concern that exists around GM. Trials should go ahead under strict conditions, but commercial planting of GM crops should only be considered if it is safe for human health and the environment, and a framework is in place to prevent unwanted mixing of GM and non-GM material and to redress financial loss in the event of this occurring. Consumers have the right to choose non-GM foods, it is therefore essential that all foods containing GM material, from whichever country, should be clearly labelled as such.

Labour: GM is one of several technologies which could play an important role in ensuring food security for a growing population. But no one technology offers the solution and whichever technology is used, it must be clear that the environment and human health will not be compromised. We have strict controls on GM crops to do that. To make global crop production more efficient and sustainable there will have to be improvements in all forms of agricultural technology, including better yields from conventional seeds, better sharing of existing knowledge, and reductions in the amount of crop material that is lost after harvest.

Lib Dem: On GM I believe we should adopt the precautionary principle, and indeed this is the EU approach. In particular, there is a considerable risk that GM crops can cross-contaminate adjacent crops, causing immense problems for organic farmers whose livelihood depends on the proven purity of their produce. Bee-keepers have enormous concerns because of the transfer of pollen over many miles.
The potential of GM for feeding the world has been very overstated. As the experience of previous agricultural revolutions has shown, technology is only part of the issue. Small farmers need to become more empowered not less, but the effect of GM and other high-tech solutions tends to be to make small farmers more dependent on big agribusiness companies and more in danger of getting into debt through being locked into buying certain seeds and pesticides.

UKIP: We might talk about potential benefits and potential risks, or we might talk about benefits and risks. But we'll end up with a vastly better policy balance if we stop comparing known benefits with unknown and unknowable potential risks.

Green: Genetically modified food presents significant and un-quantified risks to human health and the environment. These outweigh any benefits. We would ban the production or import of any genetically modified food. GM is any food that is genetically modified or includes genetically modified ingredients; from genetically modified animals; or from animals that have been given genetically modified feed. People in Britain need to know what they are eating. As such, any GM food available in this country needs to be clearly labelled as containing genetically modified ingredients or coming from genetically modified sources.

Climate Change
We asked:

How will you use a seat in the European Parliament to tackle climate change and its impact on the UK?

Again, we found a strong consensus among the main parties in terms of their stated policies. Labour pointed to their legally-binding targets committing the "UK to cutting emissions by 80% by 2050 and by 34% by 2020," as well as their target of producing 15% of our energy from renewables by 2020, and a commitment to carbon trading and supporting new, low-carbon technologies.

The Liberal Democrats called for more ambitious targets and stricter regulation, complaining that the existing European trading scheme (EU-ETS) contained too many loopholes. In fact though, their immediate targets were less strict than Labour's, calling for a 30% cut in emissions by 2020 rather than Labour's 34%. The Conservatives supported the same broad range of policies outlines above, and indeed supported the same target of an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050.

The smaller parties are less promising. The Greens call for a reduction of 10% per year, or 90% by 2030, which while admirable is frankly unrealistic. Still, at least they support action, which is more than can be said for UKIP. Tim Worstall's response to us suggested a lack of any real policy, and their is a hint of climate denialism about the UKIP party.

Overall though it's a very positive outlook, which suggests that the political battle over the reality of man-made climate change is - as the scientific debate has been more many years - over, that broad agreement has been reached on the next steps and targets, and that debate now is focused on the details of policy.

Conservative: Climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing the world, but it also provides us with an opportunity to become greener and safer. The Government's response to the huge problems has been wholly inadequate - tinkering at the edges with green gestures while failing to reduce carbon emissions. Conservatives understand that the choice between ambitious and progressive action on carbon reduction and a successful, powerful economy is, in fact, not a choice at all - they are one and the same. The solution to the threat of climate change is not to prioritise one potential solution or a single technology, but instead to push ahead on all credible fronts. Carbon trading is an important tool both domestically and internationally for ensuring that carbon reduction occurs in an economically efficient way, but it is not a solution on its own. That is why Conservatives have set out policies to support alternative energy technologies in the UK; as well as cutting carbon emissions this will also improve our energy security; and policies to cut emissions from homes, businesses and transport sectors.

Labour: All three approaches are linked. The UK Labour government is responsible for the world first that is the Climate Change Act – making cuts in CO2 emissions legally binding. The Act commits the UK to cutting emissions by 80% by 2050 and by 34% by 2020. This requires immediate action, which is why we are implementing our carbon budgets which set binding targets for carbon reduction every 5 years, identifying the ways the UK can reduce its CO2 emissions and its dependence of fossil fuels. We signed up to generate 15% of our energy from renewables, like wind, solar and tidal power, by 2020 as part of our determination to decarbonise our energy supply. The go ahead for the world’s biggest off-shore wind farm, the London Array brings the UK closer to that challenging target. And carbon trading, through the EU ETS, puts a cap on industrial emissions and means the carbon emissions reductions happen in the most cost-effective way possible. Labour has fought to phase out energy guzzling light bulbs in the EU, managed to get billions of Euros worth of funding for carbon capture and storage projects, limits on average car emissions and got aviation included in the EU ETS. Labour will work constructively with our partners in Europe to achieve a global deal on climate change at Copenhagen, develop low carbon technologies across the EU, encourage greener consumer consumption through action such as our proposed cut in VAT on environmentally friendly domestic goods and make it easier for industry to invest in low carbon energy with confidence. There is more in Labour’s manifesto for the European election which you may find helpful - http://www.labour.org.uk/uploads/e0e9e2d5-1437-8734-6d4e-8084302a2346.pdf

Lib Dem: Again the number one priority is energy-efficiency - reducing CO2 and demand. Setting ambitious energy efficiency standards accross the board is the cheapest and safest way to tackle climate change. But I would be in favour of all three options, as they naturally are linked to each other. The EU climate and energy legislation agreed in the past years and still currently on track is very coherent. It should simply be more ambitious: a 30% by 2020 emissions reduction target overall, higher standards for cars, for buildings, less industry-friendly-loopholes in the revised EU-ETS scheme, and more public support for investment in renewables. And setting emissions performance standards for power plants is all the more necessary now, because of a number of loopholes in the agreement on the EU-ETS system.

UKIP: We wouldn't prioritise any of these methods. If you actually take the time to read, say, The Stern Review it says that we need to be spending some 1-2% of GDP on solving the problems of climate change. If you then look at the taxation system in the UK you'll see that we already do pay 1-2% of GDP in green taxes. Thus, if we are to believe what Lord Stern is telling us, we've actually already done what is necessary. Of course, those who argue that we must do a great deal more than this, those who insist that this isn't enough, are also therefore arguing that it's all going to cost us a great deal more than 1-2% of GDP. One argument that is often made is that we need political union in order to deal with environmental problems such as climate change. However, this doesn't stand up to even the most rudimentary examination of the logic. All agree that we'll need the cooperation of the US, China and India in dealing with matters. But no one is arguing that we should have political union with the US, China and India whether to deal with climate change or not. So, in fact, everyone is saying that independent nations need to cooperate, without being part of one political unit, in order to solve the problem.

Green: The top priority, and the cheapest, is to reduce demand though cutting waste and improving efficiency, The Green New Deal includes massive investment in insulation. Renewables then have maximum value against a backdrop of reduced demand, rather than as currently only filling the
gap in increased demand, which allows fossil fuel use to remain high. Carbon trading can work, but needs to be better co-ordinated with meaningful systems and actions. Exempting major polluters is clearly a nonsense. EU and UK carbon reduction targets need to be deeper and managed more actively.

Summary

This was a fascinating exercise, and the first question one has to ask is why the mainstream media aren't giving more attention to actual party policy ahead of the European Elections. Instead, there is a worrying likelihood that this election will be a protest against expenses and the Labour party.

Nonetheless, on these four questions we were pleasantly surprised by the main parties, who seem to have reached a consensus on a variety of scientific issues. One notable exception to this was in the area of alternative medicine, where there appears to be a crippling lack of action on government and opposition benches.

The minor parties are a much more mixed bunch, and one wonders if voters seeking to register protest votes with the likes of UKIP and the Greens realise that they are supporting parties that apparently contain creationists and climate denialists (UKIP), and supporters of quackery (The Greens).

Follow me on Twitter! @mjrobbins