Martin Garnett

From SkepticalVoter
Jump to: navigation, search

Martin Garnett was the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for Erewash in the 1997, 2001, 2005, 2010 and 2015 general elections. Martin is Associate Professor at the University of Nottingham's School of Pharmacy.

Biography

Martin attended Bentley Grammar School, Calne, before reading Biochemistry at University College Swansea, and then gaining his Ph.D studying oxygen toxicity at University College London in 1981. Martin then moved to be a researcher at the Cancer Research Laboratories at Nottingham, before getting a lectureship at the School of Pharmacy, also at Nottingham in 1991. Martin is now is now an Associate Professor in drug delivery, and his current research includes work on effective delivery of drugs, particularly for cancer treatment and gene therapy. This research falls into the currently fashionable area of Nanotechnology. Martin has published 70 refereed Scientific articles and filed 8 patents.

Politically, Martin joined the Liberal Democrats in 1992 rapidly rising to become Chairman of the Erewash Local party in 1994. After some years serving as secretary he is currently serving again as Chairman of the Erewash Local party again. He stood as the Parliamentary candidate for the Liberal Democrats in Erewash in 1997 and 2001 and 2005. He has regularly contested local elections for Parish, Borough and County Councils, being elected as Parish Councillor for Draycott from 1995-1999. Martin's main political interests are in Science, Health, Education and Transport. Martin has lived in the Erewash Constituency for 25 years and is a governor at Friesland School.

Article for CaSE

In the run-up to the 2015 general election, the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) invited candidates to contribute posts saying why science and engineering was important to them and the UK. Martin Garnett's response can be read at: http://sciencecampaign.org.uk/?p=16811

Skeptical Voter Candidate Survey 2010

On 7th April 2010 Martin Garnett was sent the Candidate Survey, seeking his views on key issues and to understand his level of commitment to evidence-based policy-making. His response, sent on 8th April 2010, was as follows:

Health

1. Do you support the use of public funds to provide unproven alternative "treatments" such as homeopathy?
"No. We are moving at last towards medicine which is evidence based, and homeopathy or any other 'alternative therapy' has no better claim than any other unproven treatment."
2. Do you think that abortion time limits should always be determined by the current scientific and medical consensus?
"Yes"

Science

1. Do you agree that testing on animals (within strict criteria) is a necessary part of the development of medicines?
"Yes"

Religion

1. Should schools be allowed to teach creationism as an equivalent theory to evolution?
"No, creationism is not a theory"
2. Should Sharia law be allowed as an alternative system within UK law?
"No. We cannot have two parallel and different systems of law in place in this country."
3. Do you believe that religious belief should be legally protected from ridicule?
"Religious believers are entitled for their views to be given due respect, but that does not mean that they should be protected from reasonable criticism."
4. Should religious leaders be entitled to vote in the House of Lords?
"No"

Evidence-based Policymaking

1. 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. To be able to air ones views and understanding of science correctly and independently of government whether on a committee or not is a fundamental basis for academic study. If we lose this right we go down a very slippery slope back to the dark ages."
2. Should policy-makers trust scientific evidence even when it appears counter-intuitive?
"Provided the evidence is appropriately supported and presented - yes."

Libel Law

1. Do you support the reform of English and Welsh libel law to allow a stronger 'public interest' defence?
"Simply adding a public interest defence is not sufficient. English and Welsh Libel law requires a wholesale revision to make it fit for the present day and age and remove the ability for anyone with enough money to cover up whatever they want."

External Links


Why not help us expand this page with more details of this politician's positions on skeptical issues?

  • E-Mail them to ask for their opinions (and tell us about it by editing this page!)
  • Check their voting record and other details at the External Links listed above.
  • Search the media for mentions of them and their positions on issues.
  • Use your own brilliant ideas - but make sure you can back them up with a citation!