Julian Huppert

From Skeptical Voter Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Julian Huppert is the Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge. He entered Parliament at the May 2010 general election, the previous MP, David Howarth (Liberal Democrat), having stepped down.

Huppert gained a PhD in biological chemistry before becoming a research scientist at Cambridge University[1].

Contents

Evidence-based Policy

In a March 2010 guest blog-post for the Campaign for Science and Engineering titled "What do scientists and engineers bring to politics?"[2], Huppert talks about the use of the scientific method in policy decisions:

The ability to use this is not restricted to those professionally trained in the area, but is more common. This approach means thinking about evidence and data to make decisions. For example, there is increased interest in the criminal justice field about a technique known as restorative justice, where victims are given the chance to confront offenders after minor crimes – so that the offender realises what impact their offence has had.
Research shows that this is much more effective at reducing future criminality than traditional punishment, is much cheaper, and is preferred by the victims. Any decision about what to do must be informed by such results.
This is of course, not to deny the role of values and principles – data gives factual information, but the relative weightings of different issues require a political process. But I would argue throughout for evidence-based policy, not spin-based policy or policy-based evidence. More scientists and engineers are needed in Parliament to deliver this.

Statistics and policy

In July 2010, Huppert proposed Early Day Motion 461: Making Sense of Statistics Publication[3]. The motion stated:

"That this House recognises the importance of the appropriate use of statistics in policy-making and in public discourse; further recognises that parliamentarians and other policymakers should be able to identify key statistical concepts, seek to avoid making obvious errors in interpretation and identify the key questions to ask when presented with data and statistical analysis; welcomes the recently published guide Making Sense of Statistics produced by Sense About Science and Straight Statistics in collaboration with the Royal Statistical Society; and appreciates the initiative of the circulation by Sense about Science of this guide to all hon. Members."

Candidate Survey

Julian has responded to the 2010 General Election Candidate Survey.

1. Do you support the use of NHS money to provide unproven health products such as homeopathy?

  • NHS money should not be used to support products such as homeopathy, for which there is not a jot of evidence.

2. Should schools be allowed to teach creationism as an equivalent theory to evolution?

  • No. Creationism isn't an equivalent theory, in that it doesn't provide testable hypotheses.

3. Do you believe that religious belief should be legally protected from ridicule?

  • I would repeal the blasphemy laws; religious belief should not have extra protection above other beliefs.

4. Should an independent government adviser whose views in their area of expertise conflict with government policy be able to express those views publicly?

  • Yes they should. It is absolutely fine for government policy not to be entirely in accord with the views of an independent expert - decisions involve value judgements that are not simply evidence-based - but the expert should not be silenced.

5. Should religious courts such as Sharia and Beth Din be recognised as alternative systems within UK law?

  • I can see no reason why any group of consenting adults cannot chose to be bound by any additional sets of rules, as long as these are in accordance with UK law. This applies whether the rules agreed are religions or not.

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

  • Currently, animal testing is indeed necessary, and within the criteria and given sufficient evidence of benefit should continue. However, we must also accept that animal testing is fundamentally a thing to be avoided, and further research is needed into alternatives, such as 'human-on-a-chip' and computational methods.

7. Should policy-makers trust scientific evidence even when it appears counter-intuitive?

  • Ideally, policymakers would have sufficient understanding of science and the scientific method to be able to interpret for themselves how reliable a piece of evidence is. Some evidence is counter-intuitive, but right; some is counter-intuitive and wrong. There is still a place for a Bayesian prior!

8. Do you think that abortion time limits should always be determined by the current scientific and medical consensus?

  • I don't think this is a well-defined question; science and medicine cannot alone determine a time limit, as there is no sudden change that happens at a certain fixed time. However, such methods should play a strong role in informing about the decision to be made. I can not see a strong argument now for changing the time limit.

9. Should religious leaders be entitled to vote in the House of Lords?

  • The House of Lords should be fully elected; religions leaders would be perfectly at liberty to stand for election! As an intermediate stage, I would remove the Bishops from sitting in the Lords as of right.

10. Do you support the reform of English and Welsh libel law to allow a stronger 'public interest' defence?

  • Emphatically yes.

Homeopathy

In June 2010, MP David Tredinnick proposed four Early Day Motions in support of homeopathy: EDM 284, EDM 285, EDM 286 and EDM 287. With the help of investigating skeptics and Evan Harris, Huppert drafted and proposed amendments to each one, the amended EDMs being critical of homeopathy and its use in the NHS. In the case of the last three motions, each of which referenced a specific cherry-picked scientific paper, Huppert's amended motions outlined a number of serious flaws in the papers.[4][5][6][7]

In July 2010, Huppert wrote a short article on homeopathy for ePolitix.com[8] in which he stated:

"In light of what we know about homeopathy - namely, that it is ineffective beyond placebo - it is simply wrong for the NHS to continue spending on homeopathic treatments."

Religion

Julian Huppert was elected as a vice chair of the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group (APPHG) in June or July 2010[9][10].

In July 2010 Huppert proposed Early Day Motion 395: Collective Worship[11] which stated:

That this House notes the Government's wish to free schools from prescriptive legal regimes; further notes the fact that the law still requires maintained schools to hold a daily act of collective worship wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character and that teachers and others have repeatedly opposed this provision; further notes the diversity of society and rights to freedom of conscience, thought and belief as protected in domestic law; at the same time notes the educational value of inclusive school assemblies and their role in supporting shared values and the school community and ethos; and calls on the Government to repeal the requirement for compulsory worship in schools and to encourage schools to hold educational assemblies that will include all children.

Academies Bill

Julian Huppert tabled amendments 42, 43 and 44 to the Academies Bill 2010. The bill was concerned with allowing more state-funded schools in England to become "academies", still publicly-funded but with a greater degree of autonomy in areas such as budget and curriculum[12]. Amendments 42 and 43 were concerned with eliminating or reducing the degree to which faith schools' admission policy could discriminate on the grounds of religion. Amendment 44 clarified that non-faith schools would by default become non-faith academies, but also introduced the option for faith schools to drop their faith status on becoming an academy, should they so wish.

Huppert spoke on these amendments in the Commons on 21st July 2010[13][14]

References

  1. ↑ http://www.julianhuppert.org.uk/content/about-julian
  2. ↑ http://blog.sciencecampaign.org.uk/?p=861
  3. ↑ http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=41413
  4. ↑ http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=41262
  5. ↑ http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=41263
  6. ↑ http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=41264
  7. ↑ http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=41265
  8. ↑ http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/prescibing-homeopathy-is-unethical/
  9. ↑ http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/588
  10. ↑ http://www.humanism.org.uk/about/apphg
  11. ↑ http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=41335
  12. ↑ http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/academieshl.html
  13. ↑ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100721/debtext/100721-0003.htm#10072143000224
  14. ↑ http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-07-21a.379.3#g435.0

External Links


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

  • E-Mail them to ask for their opinions (and tell us about it by editing this page!)
  • Check for information at the External Links listed above.
  • Search the media for mentions of them and their positions on issues.
  • Use your own brilliant ideas to find out about what this MP thinks - but make sure you can back them up with a citation!
Retrieved from "http://skeptical-voter.org/wiki/index.php?title=Julian_Huppert"
Personal tools