Do you support the use of public funds to provide unproven alternative "treatments" such as homeopathy?
- Treatments need only be 'proven' to the patient and not provided at the behest of vested interests. I don't think badly tested 'treatments' such as the devastating Vioxx should be given to vulnerable people on a false promise. The patient should decide what treatment they need based on all the facts.
Should schools be allowed to teach creationism as an equivalent theory to evolution?
- These aren't the only origination theories that should be discussed with our children. None should be taught as fact.
Do you believe that religious belief should be legally protected from ridicule?
- Mutual respect will one day remove the use of ridicule as a weapon. Each of us is entitled to say and think as we please. This is the only protection we need from thought police.
Should an independent government adviser whose views in their area of expertise conflict with government policy be able to express those views publicly without fear of being sacked?
- Yes. Assuming they are independent and that we are to maintain this form of Government.
Should Sharia law be allowed as an alternative system within UK law?
- We don't need any more laws or religious restrictions on our lives, we need less.
Do you agree that testing on animals (within strict criteria) is a necessary part of the development of medicines?
- I believe it is exactly the opposite. Animals give results, which are often contrary to those found in humans as the countless victims of failed drugs are testifying. 'Strict criteria' are of no benefit to the three million animals tested on each year, as every lab expose shows. The words are deceptive.
Should policy-makers trust scientific evidence even when it appears counter-intuitive?
- This would depend on the science and who funded it and the policy makers and their agenda
Do you think that abortion time limits should always be determined by the current scientific and medical consensus?
- Again this would depend on the accuracy of the science but morality comes first and that's something we all have to brush up on To begin getting it right every individual should have full scientific and medical disclosure.
Should religious leaders be entitled to vote in the House of Lords?
- There should be no House of Lords; it is an undemocratic institution for out of touch elderly folk. Something like a very expensive retirement home for the well connected.
Do you support the reform of English and Welsh libel law to allow a stronger 'public interest' defence?
- Not my area but it seems to me that the media and police and politicians can say pretty much what they want anyway and very little of it is in the public interest. It isn't what people say that is important but what they do. I would overwhelmingly support a reform of the Freedom of Information Act which allows those who consume vast public funds testing things on animals be forced to reveal what it is they do and why. The secrecy surrounding this so called research is shameful.