The Greens have changed their approach to science


8:45 am - February 23rd 2010

by Jim Jepps    


      Share on Tumblr

There has been an ongoing “re-evaluation” of Green Party policy around scientific evidence recently. This came about mainly due to a few journalists helpfully letting us know that there was some deeply dodgy stuff in policy.

It certainly came as a shock to many of us who had not thoroughly read our voluminous policy documents.

This conference saw the first swath of re-orientating our policy on a more science friendly footing. We passed the motion on abolition of the science pledge – a policy so offensive to scientists and ‘technologists’ that it makes me wince just to think of it. Anyway, it’s gone. Hurray.

This was quickly followed by the passing of the science chapter enabling motion which means that the party has officially endorsed a review and rewrite of our entire science and technology section of the PSS, our core policy document.

That’s going to take some hard work and we’ll be looking for people both inside and outside of the party to help us with that process.

Health
The headlines in this are that we state that we “will not make judgements on individual treatments or medicines” as that is the job of regulators and scientists which replaced a very specific and somewhat rigid list of treatments we, apparently, like in favour of others.

We have removed the idea that health research will have a “particular emphasis” on “holistic treatments” and “complementary therapies”. We removed the statement that “vivisection is of questionable value and incompatible with ecological philosophy” replacing it with a section calling for “a thorough evaluation of animal tests” which seems difficult to disagree with as it happens already.

We previously had the difficult situation where we appeared to state that alternative therapies did not require the same kind of regulation as more conventional medicines. Conference amended this to ensure that all medicines are properly regulated and subjected to the same controls “based on the best clinical evidence available”. We also deleted a long section on “natural medicines”, whatever they might be.

Bizarrely, we did have a policy that opposed some stem cell research (but not using adult stem cells) and appeared to be, and maybe even was, the sort of thing George W. might have approved of. This was also problematic because it clashed with our 100% pro-choice agenda on abortion.

Now the policy reads that we look to the “benefits to humans and other animals from stem cell technologies, using both adult and embryonic cellular material. These benefits include direct medical advances, improved non-animal testing methods for new medical treatments, and the advancement of knowledge.”

Animals
As a last part of this process this conference we also took a look at the animal rights section and although the motion, C9, that I proposed was not passed the animal experimentation policy has been improved by removing direct reference to “scientific” grounds for opposing animal experimentation and the rather blanket reference to “superior non-animal technologies” which implied all animal tests had an already existing superior alternative that did not involve harm to animals.

However, my ambition to strip out all reference to scientific grounds for opposition to animal testing was not approved by conference.

I had hoped to stick to the ethics of animal rights within this section and leave the policy on the utility of animal testing to the health section, which seemed more appropriate, but I think members thought this was a step too far and they wanted policy to reassure them they were objectively right on a moral stance. I’m determined to see the positives of this but secretly I’m gutted at this (single) conference defeat.

When push comes to shove the Green Party has made great strides forwards at this conference and the focus is now to pull apart the science policy and make sure it’s strong, evidence based and relevant to a campaigning political party that wants to see progressive change.
All help much appreciated.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Jim Jepps is a socialist in the Green Party and formerly blogged at the Daily (Maybe). He currently writes on London politics, community and the environment at Big Smoke.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Green party ,Science ,Westminster

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Good work, Jim. Sounds like cleaning up the residual problems was also pretty uncontroversial.

Jim, it was great working with you on this. These policies were the only argument many of my progressive friends had against joining the party with which I couldn’t disagree. Now we have (on the whole) positions I can be proud of. And now, Greens can truly claim to be the progressive party on the whole gammut of political issues. I’m delighted.

(And sorry to post a cheeky link, but you can read more detailed summaries of conference policy changes, and my ‘top 5 things’, at http://www.brightgreenscotland.org)

This is very pleasing. These steps make the Green Party a more serious contender in national politics.

Well done.

Any change on nuclear power?
Or is it still windmills?

How about climate science? Global warming is happening, mankind is making it worse – but how do the Greens intend to come from 0 or 1 MPs to whatever level of infuence or power it takes to stop climate change, if the science is correct?

On the whole it all went through very easily, which gave me a boost and reassured me that it wasn’t that Greens believed this stuff – it was just in our documents. Not any more!

The whole thing had the potential to be very difficult and unpleasant but in fact even when members didn’t agree I think they appreciated we’d put a lot of work into listening to the “other side’s” concerns and done our best to word things carefully.

this still leaves me confused about the green party approach, I still see them as an anti technological progress party – can’t quite work out from this how much they have changed.

Paul, we’ve never been an anti-technological progress party.

The problem has been that there are sections of our policy that have pointed that way even as we’ve embraced scientific evidence on renewable technologies, climate change, drugs and other areas.

There is a group of us that are working to ensure we have a consistently pro-science approach rather than a pick and mix, pro-science when it suits us attitude.

This conference has stripped out/amended almost all the key areas that people were, rightly, concerned about. There’s still some work to do, of course, work that will always be an ongoing project – but we focused on addressing the most extreme problems first.

I think this deserves far more credit than it is getting – a problem with a political party’s attitude to science was highlighted, and instead of becoming defensive and abusive to those highlighting the issue, the criticism was taken on board, and policies were changed.

How many of the other parties are likely to have done this?

11. Luis Enrique

good stuff … now, how about those economics policies?

(in another life, I’d like to write an “economics for greenies” post, but no time in this one)

Any change on nuclear power?
Or is it still windmills?

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/

Still windmills then!

You going to Ramadan / Murray debate tonight?

Planeshift: well it’s true that although some people didn’t react well to the criticism, cough, cough, on the whole we’ve tried to react with an open mind to the criticism and people like myself were actually profoundly grateful to those journalists who went out of their way to highlight some real problems.

I doubt any other party would have done this, and I’m really quite proud of the way fellow party members refused to react in a dogmatic or defensive way on this.

Luis: you don’t like the Green New Deal? I’d have thought a focus on new jobs and regulating the financial sector was a fairly straight forward progressive position.

11 – Well luis I think you could point out -say 3 – things you’d like the greens to change on economic policy and see how you get on.

Nuclear power is an excellent option for green power, for people who actually understand the physics behind it.

Greenpeace, I find, are so stuck in their ways about ‘OMG toxic waste and atoms!’ to be a true critique of nuclear energy. Their misrepresentation of the data surrounding Chenobyl pretty much wrote them off in my eyes.

I fully recommend, if you’ve got an hour to spare, watching the ‘Physics for Future Presidents’ lecture on nuclear weapons and power on YouTube. It skims over the details in the mathematics, but is a great rough and ready guide for someone who is interested in the science behind fission energy, rather than the bold (and false) claims of activist groups.

Great….anyone want to try and evaluate green policies on that other science….economics?

Still windmills then!

I like windmills.
Nah – I’ve got an event to speak at, and stuff to write.

We’ll have to wait and see how this pans out in practice but – the issue of nuclear power aside – a good start.

Have to say a grudging well done for both the content shift and the way in which it was done.

This is a good start. I was around when some of this rubbish was adopted as policy in the first place, and although clearly it had a lot of believers, it was also due to the a large number being willing to acquiesce to this woolly thinking in order to build a coalition.

So how far will this go? I saw this comment the other day, not from a Green, but from someone who I would regard as being infected with your way of thinking:

“…but [I] admonished him for advising technological solutions akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, rather than changing the context/paradigm in which we humans operate in…”

Is this still the sort of things that greens would say? Just a question.

I must say if you design super efficient wind turbines using fluid dynamics and computer modelling and all that, then this is higher tech and harder science than a nuclear reactor that is 50s technology at heart.

Rather what is happening is that “technological” solutions is just used as a swear word to refer to something the speaker didn’t like.

Will this mark the end of Greens using “technological” as a swear word? Time will tell.

[The context/paradigm stuff is also problematic but deserves a book of its own.]

Adam@2,

There is a Scottish Greens branch of the Brights?!? Wow, there is hope for you.

But before your progressive friends sign up, be sure they are aware of your opposition to the international trade that has lifted much of the Asian Pacific Rim out of grinding poverty, and could probably do the same for Africa if given the chance.

Jim:

This is excellent to hear. Someone pointed out to a political party that they had outdated rubbish in their manifesto, they talked about it and changed it. Wish that would’ve worked on the LabCons.

In general: the problem for the Green Party on the issue of tech progress is that some of the people who are in it are anti-technological. The more hysterical end of 1960s anti-nuclear weapons campaigns, and the consumptive paranoia of the Cold War, are the generational preoccupations which more or less founded the party. The constitution still reflected that.

What’s happened is that the world has moved on. In that generation but outside the movement, that bundle of fears subsided under the weight of affluence and advertising, and left a particular kind of self-righteous consumer in their place. Technological progress is good, and what it means is I get a new Merc every year and a new, bigger, TV every five.

Below that generation, however, we’ve seen the development of two, competing, mainstream cultures. One looks like a counterculture, but only from the viewpoint of the older generation; both are in fact so wide-spread as to represent two distinct but mainstream viewpoints.

While one such culture is a restatement of the basic Thatcher/Reaganite values with the added instant-gratification culture of their children, the other is an explicit rejection of post-Puritanical materialism. It is used to exemplify the paradigm conflict between Gen X and their parents. This is the generation, and viewpoint, that now dominates the Green Party afaict.

On the nuclear issue; I understand why some people who can accept solar technology or take 5HTP, yet cannot accept nuclear power or genetic engineering. It’s due to a failure of joined-up thinking, resulting from the 60s propaganda campaigns that framed anti-nuclear campaigning as an objective imperative, an absolute morality, rather than a functional process of risk versus return.

Contrary to claims in the link Sunny posts above, nuclear power can be implemented now, that is inside a decade, at infrastructural scales. Not one of the renewable techniques can be implemented on that scale, in that time; at least not in Britain. Even Monbiot can see that from where we’re standing right now, nuclear power is better than coal, oil or gas. For a start it defers the waste problem, which in the next 20-30 years would be a really significant effect.

Sufficient renewable energy generation to even absorb the existing 20% shortfall in Britain’s energy needs, the one that we’re going to have to buy gas from Finland to to make up this year, would take several decades. We’d need to invent, test, implement, and develop into infrastructure a set of systems which are currently at the same stage on the tech tree as 1950s concept reactors: 3 Mile Island, for example. This is not fast. We are in a hurry.

Due to failures of conscience and politics in the 70s, we aren’t ready with renewable energy when we needed to be. With nuclear power, we (or at least the French) are. It is the only mechanism I’ve seen so far which offers a realistic hope of buying us the time we’re going to need to develop a rational, global, energy infrastructure.

Joe Otten: what is preventing Africa from lifting itself out of grinding poverty is international trade. Or more precisely, it’s international trade shaped the way it is at the moment.

For most of the last 50 years, the economics of (mostly corrupt, mostly unstable, entirely uneducated) subSaharan Africa have been a one-way money flow towards the West. Industrial investment and know-how go into a country, raw materials come out. Investment goes in, return, which is much higher, comes out of the country. We earn massively more from Africa than we give to Africa in aid and investment.

You’re damn right that international trade could make Africa rich, given the chance. “The chance” necessary is for the capital-rich, corporate West to be properly dealt with (by which I mean sued right into Chapter 11) by their own countries. That way, Africa might finally get the chance to keep a realistic percentage of the vast river of money flowing toward the West in the 20th century.

And yes, I am pretty angry hearing someone describe international trade, without caveats, as the answer to Africa’s problems. It’s the cause of about a third of them. (The other two-thirds are, approximately, tribalism and extreme C/I religious cultures).

John Q. Could do is all I claimed, and you agreed with that. How did it work in Asia? Perhaps Asia had an advantage of fewer natural resources, and therefore didn’t get the perpetual civil war that goes with them. But if I had meant no caveats I would have said would not could.

In any case the Greens autarkic trade policy (much like the BNP’s) would be a disaster for rich and poor alike.

Although to give them credit, during the build up to Gulf War 1, they were calling for trade sanctions against Iraq to be lifted. Of course they still had the policy of effectively similar sanctions against every other country in the world.

@17 Tim Worstall.
You’ve got nothing to touch the Green New Deal, and you know it.

Strategist@26,

Any kind of new deal from the Greens is jumping the gun a bit. First you have to decide whether you want the recession to end and the economy to grow again. Then you can think about how to achieve (or prevent) it.

Now I suppose you could agree with those on the right, who argue that the original New Deal did much more harm than good, and then pursue the Green New Deal anyway, intending precisely to shrink the rest of the economy. But it would take some balls to admit that was the intention.

28. Luis Enrique

another quick unsatisfactory comment [and not relevant to the OP] but …

what is preventing Africa from lifting itself out of grinding poverty is … international trade shaped the way it is at the moment.

This is a myth, and perpetuated, I’m afraid, by people who obtain their information from journalists/campaigners interested in telling a story, as opposed to comprehensive knowledge of trade tariffs etc … lots of African nations enjoy favored nation status, low tariff access to rich country markets etc. Nobody is saying the global trade system is ideal, but trade distortions are just not the binding constraint on growth in Africa … or indeed the binding constraint on trade itself, which has more to do with high transportation costs, poor legal environment etc.

here is one such argument, and you could take a look at some of this stuff and costs of doing business

Last weekend’s conference was one of the most productive in years because of this. I wish to congratulate Jim, Adam and the many others who worked on getting this through.

This is a big leap forward and removes a yoke of mistrust some had of the party.

Well done again to Jim and others.

Tim W, before you turn to the greens on economics, you might wish to try and put your own house (UKIP) in order regarding science. In particular the attitudes of some parts of your party towards global warming.

Nobody is saying the global trade system is ideal, but trade distortions are just not the binding constraint on growth in Africa …

Africa’s growth in general (it’s silly to treat the continent as a country) has been pitiful – and the way international trade is organised is at fault. Best to campaign for sorting that out first before blaming the Greens for opposing it.

32. Luis Enrique

Sunny,

I presume you are making some points there that are not directed at me. For example, I didn’t mention the Greens or treat a continent as a country. I also presume you did not really look at the links I provided which explain why “the way international trade is organised” is not at fault* for Africa’s pitiful growth in general.

* a minor contributory factor yes, the main reason, no.

Jim, this is a reasonable start.

But…

Does the proposed ban on making GMOs for agriculture still stand, the proposed ban on the sharing of GMOs across national borders, the proposed ban on the funding of GM research, the proposed ban on the use of GMOs in agriculture, etc…?

Have you reevaluated your position on Nuclear, is the proposed ban on nuclear research overturned, etc…?

While I am genuinely pleased that you have achieved what you have the greens still need to change their willingness to place areas of knowledge, let alone its application, in a scientific blacklist.

Politics does not determine scientific truths, whether that be the value of animal experiments, the safety of GM or the relative power outputs of wind vs nuclear. This is something all political parties need to learn, but the greens in particular.

Re. Joe and also Luis Enrique:

This is a myth, and perpetuated, I’m afraid, by people who obtain their information from journalists/campaigners interested in telling a story, as opposed to comprehensive knowledge of trade tariffs etc … lots of African nations enjoy favored nation status, low tariff access to rich country markets etc. Nobody is saying the global trade system is ideal, but trade distortions are just not the binding constraint on growth in Africa

I got my data by actually coming from Africa; and I recognised that there are at least two other problems at least as important as western corporate exploitation and corruption, namely tribalism and militant Christian/Islamic neocultures.

The points about the above analysis are, in order;

1) it is an analysis written by the 1st world, of the 3rd world, for the benefit of the 1st world (rather 19th Century British politicians analysing class and deciding it was innate)

2) favoured nation status, tariffs etc. are irrelevant while the 1st World controls capital investment and infrastructure development.

3) This is an analysis which entirely ignores the concept of starting conditions (much like the right-wing rhetoric surrounding single motherhood).

The difference from Asia is that Africa did not have pre-defined imperial superstates when the West started to invade it. With the exception of South Africa, the process of turning tribes into citizens didn’t start ’til after WWII. Asia, by alternative example, had a very long history of pre-colonial, imperial superstates, and a long history of trading with dominant Western powers, or fighting them, rather than being treated as subject peoples. It had a philosophical, technological and political written history stretching back as far as that of the West

Therefore, by the time we invent post-colonial definitions of acceptability, Africa was (economically) a stripmine. Little had been done to create actual colonies (more of a problem in East Africa than West) because colonies lead to independent rivals (like the USA) who object to you exporting all the profits of their labour back to the mother country. That’s bad for business.

Thus, what looks like international trade now, isn’t. 80% of the electricity produced by Ghana’s Akosombo Dam belongs to a Western conglomerate corporation. Unless UKGov stops nobbling their internal corruption investigations in an effort to save face, Ghana’s recent oil strike will see its profits exported to the West in the same way. Nestle’s history in the region, the Trafigura scandal and BAE: these are not isolated incidents, this kind of thing is standard operating procedure for Western companies in Africa. Export the profit, bribe the finance minister, bish bash bosh done. This is not standard operating procedure in East Asia, because when we tried it we had to fight several wars, which are also bad for business. So we started acting like traders and merchants, albeit powerful ones; not like owners, as we do in Africa.

In order for Africa to profit from its own resources, skills and industry the profits need to stay in Africa. If a Western firm invests in Africa, they will absolutely expect to see more money sent back to them in the West than stays in Africa; that’s the “return” bit of ROI. In other words, with trade shaped the way it is now, Africa is actively prevented from realising its own economic potential because the profits of Africa’s labour are, by tradition, expectation and contract, exported to the Western capitalists.

35. Luis Enrique

John Q

I see where you’re coming from … a great deal of what you write is not covered by what I understand phrases like “the rules of international trade” to mean, which I interpret more narrowly to concern trade specific things like market access …. subsidies, tariffs, quotas etc. Which might explain any apparent disagreement.

Of course it’s wrong to ignore starting conditions; but people like Rodrik, who argue that distorted international trade (in the narrow sense) is not the binding constraint on Africa, are not guilty of that.

I’m confused by some of what you write about the 1st world controlling capital and investment – many African nations have substantial home-grown capital flows and can also borrow from capital markets / donors. Investment can take place at many scales, right down to sole traders. It’s not just in Africa where foreign direct investment involves returns for the investor – Nissan owns the cars it manufactures in Sunderland, and repatriates (some of) the profits. Presumably the electricity that is owned in the example you mention is owned in the a similar way. I think it’s wrong to say that refusing foreign direct investment (so that profits “stay in Africa”) is the best route (China and India encourage FDI) but I am sure that many FDI deals are made on disadvantageous terms, from the point of view of Africa – part of that will be explained by corruption on both sides of the deal.

[deleted]

27. I think it’s pretty clear there are different kinds of growth and that the GND is proposing sustainable growth which, it seems to me, does not stand in contraction to opposition to growth for it’s own sake.

33. As I said in my post we’ve not finished the process but have made huge steps forward. However, I don’t think you understand the relationship between science and politics.

Simply being opposed to the wide scale roll out of GMO’s is politics. It all depends on *why* someone opposes that which determines whether this is an “anti-science” policy.

Same with nuclear. There are a number of issues with proposing nuclear as a solution to climate change which do not involve going “oh noes! atoms!”. I was going to flesh that out and then realised that this is blindingly obvious and anyone who wants to investigate why the Greens oppose nuclear only have to do some basic research with an open mind.

I had a discussion with pro-nuclear green Chris Goodall here for example
http://jimjay.blogspot.com/2009/03/going-nuclear-in-discussion-with-chris.html

38. Thomas Greenan

Anyone that thinks economics is a science in the same way that physics is deserves all they get. Cue the joke about being able to predict all horse races, provided only we assume that all horses are spheres running in a perfect vacuum.

40. George W Potter

Well done to the Greens. It was only their policies on science that put me off in the first place and I now have half a mind to consider them again. Either way, this kind of change can only be for the better and it certainly reflects well on the party.

Thomas @38….yes, some members of the political party I blenog to I try to educate on matters scientific. In this case, the important questions are not about whether, but what certain loons are suggesting we do about it.

I look forward to the Green Party doing the same with their economic ignorants.

Really…there’s even the possibility that I might vote for them again if they do.

Jim@37, sure there are different kinds of growth. And some kinds are better than others for the environment, or whichever good thing you are interested in.

But while GDP is perhaps arbitrary and misleading statistic when we want to know about “doing good”, it is a useful statistic when we want to consider questions of productivity, average incomes, the tax base, levels of taxation and so on. And recession is quite usefully defined in terms of it.

So it might not be inconsistent, but it is squirming, not to be clear what your intended consequence of the Green New Deal policy is for growth/recession etc. Do you want the recession to continue? Do you want it to end? Do you not care/think it is irrelevant?

[And seeing as you are signposting your nuclear discussion, I will resume that debate too.]

Tim W – how’s our friend Godfrey Bloom doing?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/8509540.stm

And cjcjc – coming from a climate change Troofer like yourself, this sneering is rather hilarious

Why is it France does not have a problem with nuclear power?

Sunny, as I’ve already mentioned here in the comments: Godfrey didn’t know/had forgotten about that murder when he made the comments. That’s the tale I’ve heard from inside the party anyway.

“@17 Tim Worstall.
You’ve got nothing to touch the Green New Deal, and you know it.”

Well, not sure about that. As I noted on the day it came out, whoever wrote it (and I suspect this bit came from either Caroline Lucas or Richard Murphy) they certainly have their economics garbled.

They suggest that we should have:

1) Lower interest rates so as to make investment in green projects more profitable.

2) Capital controls to make sure that there is more capital available for such green projects.

The problem with 1) is that they’ve ignored opportunity costs. Sure, if you’ve a project with a 4% rate of return and you force interest rates down to 3% then it looks like you’re making a profit. But it’s still true that the projects returning 6% (as an example) return more. So while you think you’re profiting you’re actually losing that difference between 4 and 6%.

A second problem with 1) is that they seem to think that governments control long term interest rates. Which they don’t, they control only very short term ones.

Finally, of course (assuming that you’re not a New Keynesian), reducing interest rates reduces savings and thus reduces the amount of capital that can be borrowed to invest in green projects.

As to 2). You may have noticed that we’ve been running trade deficits since whenever (I think we’ve had trade surpluses in three years since 1945….it’s something like that anyway). One of the simple bits of economics is that if you have a trade deficit then you must have a capital surplus. For the current and captial accounts together make the balance of payments which must indeed balance.

So, trade deficits mean, as an identity (ie, this is not arguable, it simply is) that foreigners must be sending capital into the country.

Now we impose capital controls. Yes, this means that Brits cannot send their money out (welcome back to needing government permission to take 25 quid out of the country….about 80 quid accounting for inflation….a rule that Maggie abolished in 1979) but it also means that foreigners won’t send their money in if they cannot take it out again.

So, the Green New Deal is saying that in order to increase the amount available to invest in green projects we must stop those bastard foreigners sending us their lovely capital to invest in green projects.

You may or may not think that this “touches” the Green New Deal. Personally I take it as evidence that those who wrote it have absolutely no fucking clue whatsoever.

“Increase capital investment by reducing the amount of capital available for investment” does meet the definition of absolutely no fucking clue whatsoever, doesn’t it?

[deleted]

“aircraft exhaust would block sunlight & bring on the then promised ice age.”

*Loads Iphone app. Looks up “promised ice age”

ah fuck it, can’t be bothered.

[deleted]

Fine Neil

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

read, and debate it with those there.

Back to the Greens and science, this is all good news. But is it going to translate into any changes in practice? Caroline Lucas is a hard-line antivivisectionist. She put her name to plenty of amendments in the European Parliament to restrict animal research, frequently citing the so-called “scientific” arguments. Will we see any change in this behaviour?

Sunny, as I’ve already mentioned here in the comments: Godfrey didn’t know/had forgotten about that murder when he made the comments.

hahahaha!!!

Godfrey is no different to the raving lunatic Neil Craig above (now deleted and banned). All they do is swear while claiming to be on the side of science and rationality.

@ Neil Craig: I invoke Godwin’s Law.
http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/godwin/
You lose.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Justin McKeating

    I'm liking this… http://bit.ly/cHUASw

  2. Ian Wardle

    RT @AdamRamsay RT @libcon The Greens have changed their approach to science http://bit.ly/adEVfV

  3. Thetis

  4. Louise Johnson

    Green Party've changed their policies on woo & animal research! Puts them back in the running for my vote. http://bit.ly/adEVfV

  5. fatrat

  6. Rupert Read

    RT @AdamRamsay: RT @libcon The #GreenParty have changed their approach to science http://bit.ly/adEVfV

  7. Jonathan Hogg

    Great, looks like the Greens are cutting some of their stupid policies on stem cell research, homoeopathy and things http://bit.ly/aXZzv4

  8. Sarah Raphael

    RT @ThetisMercurio: looked at their own policies. Winced. A bad day for CAM RT @libcon The Greens have changed their approach to science http://bit.ly/adEVfV

  9. Daniel Lee

    RT @AdamRamsay: RT @libcon The Greens have changed their approach to science http://bit.ly/adEVfV

  10. Allan Siegel

    RT @libcon: The Greens have changed their approach to science http://bit.ly/cE41Fs

  11. Jim Jepps

    RT @libcon: The Greens have changed their approach to science http://bit.ly/adEVfV

  12. James Meadway

    RT @libcon: The Greens have changed their approach to science http://bit.ly/adEVfV

  13. sunny hundal

  14. IanBertram

  15. Dawn Foster

    Well that's secured my vote! RT @pickledpolitics The Green's @Jim_Jepps says they've changed their approach to science: http://bit.ly/cE41Fs

  16. James Mackenzie

    RT @libcon: The Greens have changed their approach to science http://bit.ly/adEVfV

  17. Caspar Aremi

  18. sunny hundal

  19. Leon Green

    RT @sianberry: RT @libcon: The Greens have changed their approach to science http://bit.ly/adEVfV

  20. Chris Coltrane

    Here's a brief run-down on the moves at the the Green Party conference to become pro-science http://bit.ly/adEVfV

  21. Cai Wingfield

    RT @sianberry: RT @libcon: The Greens have changed their approach to science http://bit.ly/adEVfV

  22. /jess bradley

    @NickBrownbill thought you might find this interesting… RT @caspararemi http://tinyurl.com/y9ht75h

  23. Elisabeth Whitebread

    @bengoldacre RT @libcon: The Greens have changed their approach to science http://bit.ly/adEVfV

  24. NickBrownbill

    @rebellionkid Any thoughts on the Greens moving more toward science and reason? http://tinyurl.com/y9ht75h

  25. gimpy

    some welcome reassement from the greens on some aspects of science, nothing on GM or nuclear though http://bit.ly/cHUASw

  26. Mark Taylor

    RT @gimpyblog: some welcome reassement from the greens on some aspects of science, nothing on GM or nuclear though http://bit.ly/cHUASw

  27. Liberal Conspiracy

    The Greens have changed their approach to science http://bit.ly/adEVfV

  28. Ryan Bestford

    RT @libcon: The Greens have changed their approach to science http://bit.ly/adEVfV

  29. AdamRamsay

    RT @libcon The Greens have changed their approach to science http://bit.ly/adEVfV

  30. uberVU - social comments

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by thedharmablues: RT @libcon: The Greens have changed their approach to science http://bit.ly/adEVfV

  31. Robin Johnson

    RT @LouiseJJohnson: Green Party've changed their policies on woo & animal research! Puts them back in the running for my vote. http://bit.ly/adEVfV

  32. Jay O

    Liberal Conspiracy: The Greens have changed their approach to science http://bit.ly/cE41Fs (@mortari)

  33. AdamRamsay

    RT @pickledpolitics: The Green party's @Jim_Jepps explains says they have changed their approach to science: http://bit.ly/cE41Fs

  34. Looking Greenly | Austro-Athenian Empire

    [...] (or a) UK Green Party has “changed [its] approach to science,” according to this story. (CHT Ken [...]

  35. Benjamin A'Lee

    Green Party has fixed some of of its science policies http://ur1.ca/ndai hurray for evidence-based politics (via @libcon)

  36. >>Nostalgia For Infinity - Linkfest: February 21st – February 28th

    [...] Liberal Conspiracy » The Greens have changed their approach to science – There has been an ongoing “re-evaluation” of Green Party policy around scientific evidence recently. This came about mainly due to a few journalists helpfully letting us know that there was some deeply dodgy stuff in policy. It certainly came as a shock to many of us who had not thoroughly read our voluminous policy documents. Tags: greenparty uk electoralpolitics policies science [...]

  37. Unity

    @PeteKavanagh Actually, the Green's science policies have been improving of late – http://bit.ly/cHUASw #bbcqt

  38. Cai Wingfield

    @willwybrow http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/02/23/the-greens-have-changed-their-approach-to-science/ ???

  39. Emma-Louise Hardman

    It seems the #GreenParty have changed their previously dubious stance on #science, which is good news for me http://bit.ly/db4aL9

  40. Simon Stuart

    @crikey_uk @cjwilliams1975 My problem with the Greens has always been their anti-science stance: HOWEVER -> http://bit.ly/cs5RBL … hmm!

  41. Andrew Parrington

    @kevpeel Luckily they have changed their mind on Woo magic http://bit.ly/99R29c

  42. Laura Sewell

    Liberal Conspiracy » The Greens have changed their approach to science http://goo.gl/Cf5s

  43. gimpy

    @DrEvanHarris this blog post from @Jim_Jepps on changing green policies on science is useful http://bit.ly/cHUASw

  44. Pozorvlak

    @johannhari101 Green Party policy no longer supports alternative medicine: http://j.mp/99R29c

  45. Gary Dunion

    @bobsetsfire WIth you 100% on complimentary medicine but we're winning that one. This is a useful update on the debate: http://bit.ly/cHUASw

  46. Bex Holmes

    @Jim_Jepps Read http://t.co/UlaaNl08 Need advice on whether a blog taking a skeptical look at the environment movement is needed. Thoughts?

  47. sunny hundal

    @tomchivers erm, they have changed on that http://t.co/hWVlNOsp and http://t.co/pZdqKGSh

  48. Camden FoE

    @tomchivers erm, they have changed on that http://t.co/hWVlNOsp and http://t.co/pZdqKGSh

  49. Camden FoE

    @mjrobbins MT@ @sunny_hundal erm, they have changed on that http://t.co/TIll9MpS and http://t.co/DttPHgPn





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.