Does parliament need more scientists?

The impact of science has never been confined to the laboratory. Today, many of the most important and difficult decisions faced by politicians are fundamentally scientific, from the best way to tackle climate change to the recent vote to allow mitochondrial replacement therapy.

Robert Winston, Professor of Science and Society at Imperial, has had a key role in many of the biggest science policy decisions made by parliament in the 20 years he’s been a Member of the House of Lords. He was voted “Peer of the Year” by his fellow parliamentarians in 2008 for his work on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill. He recently spoke to Felix about the role of scientists in politics.

“The trouble with the House of Commons” says Winston, “is that more and more people are going in immediately after leaving University with the idea that they’re going to be party leader in 10 years time, and they come in without any background. If you look at the party leaders, all three of them have had very little experience of the real world. Nick Clegg has had some slight experience, but the other two haven’t ever done a proper job, really, it’s always been political, and I don’t think that’s good for parliament. There are a few doctors in parliament—Sarah Woolaston, for example, is a very good doctor—but we could do with more.”

The number of MPs with a scientific background is truly dire. Of the 649 MPs, only one has been a practicing scientist: Julian Huppert, a biochemist and MP for Cambridge. Just two others have science PhDs, and of the 90% with university degrees, only 54 hold theirs in any type of science, technology or medicine. This compares to 84 MPs who are former lawyers.

The House of Lords, however, remains one of the only legislative bodies in the world where a huge amount of scientific expertise can be found. Despite the perennial attacks on the chamber as being undemocratic and anachronistic, and repeated failed attempts to replace it with an elected body, Lord Winston was keen to defend the valuable role, particularly in scientific matters, that its members can play.

“The House of Lords is full of scientists, and if you look round the House, there are a large number of us who are Fellows of at least two out of the three scientific academies, a surprising number, who are Fellows of the Royal Academy of Engineering, Fellows of the Royal Society, Fellows of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and often many of us are Fellows of more than one of those institutions. That’s why debates on science in the House of Lords are well thought of, and are models for other parliaments to follow.

“In the Commons, MPs can’t use their expertise, as the way parliament is structured means that can’t really vote with any scientific expertise you might have as you have to vote with your side. In the House of Lords, we don’t take any notice of the whips and they accept that and appreciate that.”]

“In the House of Lords, there’s a feeling that you’re going to vote rationally, and I think that’s why the chamber should not be too rapidly reassembled, as it has some strengths which are quite important.”

Winston is proud of the contribution he and other prominent scientists have made in the Lords. He is Vice-chair of the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology and has advised ministers on science and medical policy.

“I think most people feel that I certainly helped Tony Blair to come to the decision to increase funding for the health service very dramatically in 2000, and I’m not alone in that. Ara Darzi (Professor of surgery at Imperial) has been a tremendously influential member of the House of Lords. He became a minister for while and really fundamentally laid down some very important things, so I think individual members of the House of Lords can have colossal influence in doing something that is really using their expertise. Of course, you’d never get someone like Ara Darzi in the lower chamber.”

“Ron Oxburgh as well, one of our former Rectors, has been tremendously influential in energy policy and renewables and how we should use fossil fuels.”

Many of the decisions Robert Winston has made in politics have been influenced by his experiences treating patients. How does he reconcile this with the need to remain objective and open-minded when making decisions that could affect everyone in the country? Are there instances where the arts graduates who usually run the country could be better placed to make decisions about scientific issues?

“Ultimately any individual clinician has the major responsibility to do the best for their patients, and of course if you were my patient, you would expect that.”

“Sometimes you realise that keeping this patient alive is probably quite difficult to justify, when for the same expense you could probably treat 30-40 other people, so I think that’s always an issue.”

“I suppose in my case you could level your finger at me and say ‘you’ve been treating patients with infertility, which isn’t a life-threatening condition’, but of course it causes massive disruption, and the pain of infertility is every bit as bad as the pain of an osteoarthritic hip, and you wouldn’t think twice about treating that.”

“So how do you become objective as a parliamentarian when you feel quite subjectively outraged? That outrage is sometimes useful, sometimes you need to stand up and say this is outrageous, as we did with the health reform act in 2012, and I think the only fault we had there was not saying it loud enough.”

“I think we should have said more firmly that this is a very bad piece of legislation, which now, of course, the government admits, but only once the damage has already been done.”

“I’m not a great thinker, but I think the strength I may have in parliament is the ability to give passionate speeches on things I feel deeply about, and I think that’s quite important in politics.”