Evan Harris blames election loss on ‘defamatory’ campaign

Parliament’s most prominent campaigner on science issues, Liberal Democrat Evan Harris, has blamed his election defeat on a smear campaign by right-wing Christians and animal-rights extremists.

The Animal Protection Party and local Christians led by Anglican vicar Lynda Rose, distributed around 10,000 leaflets each, attacking Harris for his support for animal research and supposed anti-religious views.

Harris lost by 176 votes to Conservative newcomer Nicola Blackwood in Oxford West and Abingdon. He previously held the seat with a 7,683-vote majority. But boundary changes added villages from David Cameron’s Witney constituency and switched some university areas to Oxford East, says Reg Little of The Oxford Times.

“We always treat the seat as marginal, it was made more so by boundary changes,” Harris told Research Fortnight. “Was the whole swing due to these leaflets? Probably not. Was the fraction of swing that represented the margin of defeat accounted for with those attacks? Yes, certainly.”

Harris calls the leaflet from the Animal Protection Party “inflammatory and defamatory”. Both groups produced election leaflets in which he is called “Dr Death”for supporting abortion and voluntary euthanasia. The animal rights group also highlighted Harris’ advocacy of “‘Frankenstein’ hybrid human/animal embryos for research”; his support for “Oxford University’s secret animal research programmes” and criticism of homeopathy. The religious group said Harris was anti life and had tabled amendments that would restrict religious liberty.Neither group produced leaflets in the 2005 campaign.

Harris fears that their success could encourage the groups to use the same tactics again. “I worry that some MPs will feel they ought not speak out on those sorts of issues, for fear of this stuff being directed their way.”

Harris says he plans to stand in the next election and has support from people in science and research. He also plans to meet Julian Huppert, a scientist and Lib Dem MP for Cambridge, to discuss ways to continue his campaigns.

However, a letter to The Oxford Times from former Oxford Mail editor Eddie Duller puts Harris’ defeat down to protests over his expenses and “that he was not a good constituency MP”.

Westminster’s new scientist

Biophysicist Julian Huppert, the newly elected Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge, talks to Research Fortnight about being hailed as Evan Harris’ successor.

What’s life like as a new MP?

It’s been an amazing experience, I’m still trying to understand how the House of Commons works—it is very much a maze, there are lots of rules no one tells you about until they break them.

Now that Evan Harris is out of the Commons, you have been hailed as science’s next champion. How does that feel?

[Evan’s defeat] was very sad. Tragic. It’s very flattering to be considered his successor. It’s also a bit nerve-wracking and I will just have to do the best I can for science. There are other MPs with science backgrounds but I guess I’m the most involved.

What have you done so far?

The House of Commons hasn’t really started yet and we can’t really do much before we’re sworn in this week. But I’ve talked with the Royal Society of Chemistry and some other learned societies have been in touch. Obviously we haven’t arranged committee places yet, so I don’t know exactly what role I’ll have. One of my priorities will be on a campaign promise to look at civil liberty and human rights issues.

You have previously told us you are torn between focusing on science policy and bringing scientific thinking to other government areas. Is that still the case?

It is still very much a tie. I don’t want the message to be that scientists can only do science. But equally I think it’s important to do science! I hope there will be time to get involved in more than one area because I have never been a politician who’s only cared about one thing.

How will Liberal Democrat and Conservative science policies fit together within the coalition?

I think a lot of our science policies are not areas where the Conservatives have any fundamental objection—it’s more than they haven’t engaged with them yet. So I would be hopeful that for some we can make the case. For example, on getting more women into science, I’d be astonished if they object.