Evan Harris, former LibDem MP, speaks out on science cuts

IT'S TRUE THAT "Parliament is full of lawyers and has lots of business people," says Evan Harris, "but not many doctors." The former LibDem MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, Harris was, from 1997 until the last election, an exception.

Ironically, just as the LibDems seized a position on centre stage, he lost his seat to the Conservatives by 176 votes, a result widely mourned because of his contributions to science policy.

Having medical training is, Harris says, "one of the main reasons I regret not being in Parliament at the moment." Being able to speak with confidence on issues that many people find difficult, "has particular value in Parliament."

What does a deposed MP do all day? "I'm doing all the things I used to do as an MP but on less of a salary." He is juggling smartphone, laptop bag, and helmet; his bicycle is waiting outside. In recent months he's been writing for the Guardian and campaigning against government spending cuts for science research, for libel reform, and for death with dignity.

Harris, who has an Oxford medical degree, got involved in the student Social Democrrat society and was peripherally involved, three years later, when it merged with the Liberals. He "caught the bug" and became active in student election campaigns. Eventually, "The prospect of fighting the Parliamentary seat came up and I took it as an opportunity to go from two jobs to one job."

Over his time in Parliament, Harris took advantage of being perpetually in opposition to gradually narrow his focus to cross-party campaigns for science and rational policy-making, a natural choice given his training.

"I had a sense of guilt that all this public money had been spent on my education and I'd spent so much time doing politics and not so much sitting post-graduate exams, and maybe I should pay it back and use what I'd picked up."

At the moment, the Science is Vital campaign is top of his agenda.

"It's always difficult to make clear to the public what you're talking about when you say that there's an argument to invest in science," he says, "because it seems like you're making a case for science like everything else."

Science is different, he contends, because withdrawing funding from research is false economy. "If you cut scientific investment you slow growth, and it will mean losing more money than you gained by making the cut."

Britain's science funding has very little wastage in any case. "Almost all public funding is put into research that is later judged to be excellent or world-class," he says. "And prospectively only a small number of the research applications judged excellent are fundable because we start from a low position anyway." He means low funding levels compared to the rest of the G8. By any metric, the UK punches well above its weight: number of citations, for example.

Also specific to science as a sector: "You don't have a work force that you can put on hold, as you do in the building profession. It's a tragedy for the individuals, but they can go back to building three years later. But those who are research-active either go abroad or they take another job because they are highly skilled and sought-after, and then it's difficult to come back because of how quickly the work they were doing moves on, so you lose a large section of a generation."

Part of what's needed – and what the Science is Vital demonstration in London in October was intended to accomplish – is to show that there is such a thing as a "science vote".

"Part of the point," he says, "was to make it clear to politicians that like in other areas there is a political consequence to cuts in this area. Scientists will have a memory." This is, he says, something entirely new: "We haven't had an election where the science vote has been present, let alone relevant or significant, and I want over the next few years to create a scientific lobby that is more than just the senior members of learned societies sharing dinner with policy-makers. I want it also to be down and dirty at the electoral level with a number of constituencies."

Harris has also been active in the last couple of years in the campaign for libel reform launched by the case brought against the science writer Simon Singh by the British Chiropractic Association. The experience showed him the power of online communities and social media to create a "viral" spread.

The libel reform campaign is a good example. "I had been working with English PEN and Index on Censorship to abolish seditious and blasphemous libel, and also with Sense About Science," he says. "And libel reform showed the power of online petitions and the individual, and my question was, to what extent in the future can we, like our opponents on many issues – alternative medicine advocates, animal rights protesters, religious opponents of lieral policies regarding the beginning and end of life, choice on abortion, sexual health – if we can mobilise the sceptical movement, the rationalists, the scientists, and the liberati on single issues in Parliament and then make sure some support is given to their champions." µ