Jeremy Corbyn accused of showing ‘no interest’ in science amid Brexit fears

Chair of Scientists for Labour campaign group says party leadership rival Owen Smith is ‘very impressive’, but insider claims most of its committee were already opposed to Mr Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn MP (Getty)

Jeremy Corbyn has been accused of showing “no interest” in science by the chair of campaign group Scientists for Labour, which is now considering taking the unusual step of balloting its members in order to nominate a candidate in the leadership election.

Ahead of the party vote, the group sent six questions to Mr Corbyn and his rival Owen Smith designed to find out where they stood on the current issues in science, particularly the prospect of leaving the European Union.

The scientific community was left reeling by Brexit referendum vote, as freedom of movement has allowed academics and students from the EU to come to Britain and UK science has done disproportionately well in winning EU research grants.

Even the pro-Brexit Scientists for Britain group has insisted the UK will still have access to EU research grants after leaving, suggesting it would be “Armageddon” for British science if this did not happen.

However there are fears that the most anti-EU Conservative MPs will be able to force all ties with the bloc to be severed.

Given this background, the chair of Scientists for Labour, John Unsworth, said it was important the Labour's leadership “got science”.

“Corbyn himself has shown no interest in science. [John] McDonnell has, but very much at the economic level. At the science level there has been very little interest,” he said, stressing he was speaking in a personal capacity.

He said he and other members of Scientists for Labour's executive committee had felt Mr Smith's statement on science was “very impressive”.

"To me, the big different between the two is Jeremy's is much more woolly and imprecise and skirts some of the more difficult issues more lightly," he said.

Mr Unsworth also criticised Mr Corbyn for failing to create a shadow science minister – an idea he had supported during last year's Labour leadership contest and again in his replies to the group's questions.

However a source within Scientist for Labour claimed most of the group's committee were supporters of Mr Smith and “made their mind up in opposition to Jeremy's leadership well before the leadership challenge happened”.

“Personally, I am very impressed by Jeremy's dedication to science. He was, in fact, the first candidate to raise science as an issue when he committed to provide jobs for the future by boosting science spending,” the insider added.

And a source close to the Labour leader said: “The idea that Jeremy doesn't care about science is absolute nonsense.”

He noted that the patrons of Scientists for Labour were Gordon Brown, a champion of New Labour, and Lord Sainsbury, who was nominated to become a member of the House of Lords by Tony Blair and then became science minister in Government a year later.

In his response to the questions from Scientists for Labour, Mr Smith said the subject was “central to the success of any advanced economy”; pledged to boost investment in the “green economy”, saying climate change “must be treated very seriously”; and criticised NHS spending on homeopathy and other “alternative” therapies that have not been proved scientifically.

He also warned that Brexit would be “extremely damaging” to UK science and pledged to work to “prevent right-wing Leavers negotiating a right-wing deal” that would sever most or all ties with EU if he was elected Labour leader.

Mr Unsworth said: “We don’t know Owen very well to be honest. He’s relatively new to us. We were very impressed with the quality of the replies he gave to us on a variety of issues.

“The one that’s perturbing us most is the impact of Brexit. His comments around the importance of the EU to science and the importance of getting any Brexit settlement right for science are really important.”

In his statement, Mr Corbyn said Brexit was presenting the UK with “a series of major challenges”; suggested the UK should learn from Finland’s “science-led” economic drive in the 1990s; talked about increasing UK science funding up to three per cent of GDP; and said it was “essential” to trying to minimise the effects of climate change.

He also said science “certainly deserves more prominence than the current government is giving it, with both the closure of a dedicated climate change department and the disappearance of science into the expanded business department”.

“This does require the creation of a Cabinet-level minister with a clear responsibility for science,” Mr Corbyn said.

Yvonne Fovargue quit as shadow minister for consumer affairs and science – during the mass resignations of shadow ministers in June and has not been replaced.

She was not a Shadow Cabinet member. The current science minister, Jo Johnson, is not a member of Theresa May's Cabinet.

Mr Unsworth said Mr Corbyn had made similar comments about having a science minister in his Shadow Cabinet “but that was something he did not deliver on”.

“The science shadow, prior to the mass resignations, was a lady who was relatively junior and had dual responsibility with consumer affairs. It was really ridiculously over-loaded," Mr Unsworth said.

However he added that shadow Chancellor John McDonnell and Labour MP Seema Malhotra, who was shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, both seemed “pretty pro science”.

Mr Unsworth said Scientists for Labour, which had told both candidates it was not planning to vote for a preferred candidate for Labour leader, would now consider whether to formally nominate Mr Smith or Mr Corbyn.

“We don’t normally nominate as an organisation, partly because we feel it is imperative we ballot all our members and we’re not really happy to do that until we have got two science statements [from the candidates],” Mr Unsworth said.

“We don’t particularly want to ballot members on their general political views. It’s their attitudes towards science which would dictate any nomination.

“I’d consult with the EC [executive committee] to do that. We haven’t normally done it because it takes too long. It’s just a possibility.”