Archive for July, 2010

A homeopathic dose of sense – Government’s response to select ctte

July 26, 2010

This is my initial response..

Today the Government published its response to the House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee Report on Homeopathy.

Dr Evan Harris, the former Liberal Democrat MP, who was a member of the Science and Technology Select Committee when it published its report, said

“This is not a good start for the new Health Secretary when it comes to evidence-based policy. It looks like Prince Charles has been in touch with the Health Secretary again.

How does the Government justify allowing treatments that do not work to be provided by the NHS in the name of choice, when it allows medicines which do work to be banned from NHS use?

“The Government likes to claim that its health policies – on alcohol and obesity and on vaccination – are both evidence based and ethical but today has said that the Government has no interest in the value for money or ethics of the spending of millions of pounds by the NHS.”

“Patients who are denied the choice of expensive but effective new medicines for serious conditions are now entitled to ask why Mr Lansley allows the cash-strapped NHS to spend money on ineffective treatments in the name of “patient choice”.


Muir Russell report on climate-Gate – Select Ctte member responds

July 7, 2010

Dr Evan Harris, the former Lib Dem MP, who was a key member of the Commons Science and Technology Committee which conducted an earlier enquiry into the Climate Research Unit at the UEA, said:

This report simply reinforces the findings of the Select Committee, that the scientists’ reputations remain intact, that the data and results are reliable and that the University failed to handle FoI requests adequately.”

“The response of sceptic groups, like the Global Warming Policy Foundation, in rejecting all three enquiries merely demonstrates that conspiracy theorists and the anti-science brigade are never satisfied by due process and scientific methods and it is more important that such groups are marginalised by policy-makers.”

“It is important that the scientists concerned in this episode are supported by their peers and able to continue their important work, and that all publicly-funded research institutions understand the need to be more open with their raw data especially after research is published.”