Scientist to challenge Leicestershire MP at election over alternative medicines
A scientist with a PhD in quantum physics will challenge David Tredinnick at the General Election over his backing for homeopathy and astrology.
Journalist and author Dr Michael Brooks has lectured at some of the most prestigious universities in the world and is a consultant at New Scientist magazine.
Dr Brooks says he will stand as an independent candidate against Bosworth's 60-year-old Conservative MP because he objects to Mr Tredinnick's support for alternative medicines.
He said: "Mr Tredinnick is symptomatic of the problem facing the future of Britain, not just because he was involved in the expenses scandal, but because he is exactly the kind of MP who undermines science.
"Tredinnick's expenses included a claim for astrology software. Do we want MPs to be making decisions about the future of our country based on where Saturn happens to be in the sky on the night before a vote in the House of Commons?"
He added: "He is a champion of pseudo-science and a hindrance to rational governance."
But Mr Tredinnick hit back at the claims, and criticised scientists who he said were unwilling to consider the evidence for alternative healthcare.
He said: "This seems focused on my support for complementary medicine. The attacks on homeopathic medicine have increased recently.
"There is a danger that so-called scientists are so set in their ways that they are unable to consider alternative viewpoints. Systems of healthcare in India and China have linked medicine and astronomy for centuries. Are we really just dismissing their views?"
Mr Tredinnick is a former pupil of Eton and studied at St John's College, Oxford. He entered Parliament in 1987 and has a majority of 5,319.
Dr Brooks, 39, is a married father-of-two and lives in East Sussex. He makes a living as a freelance science writer and has contributed to the Guardian, Independent and the Observer, lectured at New York and Cambridge universities, and regularly appears on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme.
He said: "Of course, some will see it as a publicity stunt, but it isn't that. It's a genuine attempt to get an important issue on to the agenda.
"Getting Tredinnick out of office will be a good start. Hopefully, we can populate the House of Commons with people who understand what really makes the world go round – literally and metaphorically."
Mr Tredinnick recently tabled an Early Day Motion suggesting that the House of Commons Select Committee's report into homeopathy, which recommended that the NHS no longer fund homeopathic treatments, was poorly researched.
Earlier this year, he repaid £755 of taxpayers' money he claimed on expenses for astrology computer software.
10 Comments
View all
by Alex Sumner, UK
Thursday, April 08 2010, 12:30PM
“The decision to use any particular type of treatment, whether homeopathic or conventional, should rest with one person and with one person only: the doctor who has the patient right there in front of them. Not NHS managers, not journalists, not current or potential politicians.
In that sense, David Tredinnick's Early Day Motion was entirely *correct* as he was trying to take patient care away from the stuffed shirts in Whitehall and give it back to the medical practitioner.
Anyway - has anyone considered: what does a scientist with a PhD in *Quantum Physics* know about Medicines and Healthcare?”
by John, Leicester
Tuesday, March 30 2010, 8:26PM
“I could never have any faith in an elected representative who champions beliefs that the random conjunction of planets and stars in the universe governs our actions and outcomes. After 4000 years of gradually growing rationalist arguments it seems that there will always be those who are guided by astrology, tea leaves chicken entrails etc. It wouldn't be so bad if these folk were harmless, but what if governmental policy was decided in this way? David Tredinnick may be in the position of being the casting vote in a ballot, based upon his irrational beliefs.”
by karin, Oadby
Tuesday, March 30 2010, 4:10PM
“Hello Danny, my 'ultra clever' comment regarding scientists was that they often seem to disregard anything that cannot provide incontrovertible evidence of its effectiveness or existence. There is more to this life than meets the eye. I personally would not blindly believe in what could be unkindly termed as 'quack' medicine. However, the mind is a powerful thing and if people believe in something then it can provide benefit. Sometimes alternative therapies can also be used in conjunction with modern medicine . There are some women who shop at Boots and buy creams and potions which they believe will make them appear young and attractive. Should these gullible people be protected from themselves also? Let people believe what they want to...if it makes them feel better why not...”
by teresa, leicester
Tuesday, March 30 2010, 1:40PM
“I agree that there is a lot of controversy over alternative therapies. Ingeneral I believe that NHS treatment should be evidence based. However, I have 2 health conditions that have not been helped by any pharmaceutical treatment. They are however relieved, though not cured, by certain alternative therapies (not homeopathy - I have not tried that). Why should I not be offered any of these therapies on the NHS, they are conseiderably more cost effective than the medicines I tried that didn't work. As a person who works full time and wishes to continue to do so, it would be far more cost effective to give alternative therapy once a month than to pay me benefits as I become increasingly disabled. Currently I pay for my own treatments, but continue to pay into the NHS through taxes. Therefore I am paying twice.”
by Danny, Narborough
Tuesday, March 30 2010, 12:07PM
“Karin,
I don't normally address my replies to other people's comments but you start off by saying that you have no opinion but then criticise those that do. Your description of scientists as "ultra clever" seems (I apologise if I have got you wrong) to be critical of anyone who has actually investigated, learnt about the topic and knows the facts and can then comment from some level of authority.
And there is a reason to knock homeopathy and those that believe it works because, beyond the placebo effect, it doesn't work. Not only is it a waste of money but can prevent people taking proper medicine which might work.
At the government enquiry into homeopathy which David Tredinnick criticises the representative from Boots, when questioned closely about the evidence for homeopathy working could only say that they sell it because there is evidence that people believe it works.
That is a reason to make money from these gullible people, not a reason to pass it off as a medicine.”