Is “Sound Science” an indicator of how politicians vote?
I was chatting with some people who are convinced that if politicians just understood the science they would back them.
I get why some people may think “if only they understood our scientific case they would back us”. I understand it but don’t agree with it. More importantly, I don’t think there is any evidence to support the idea.
Having spent a long time working for politicians and lobbying them, I think there are a lot more simple reasons to help explain why a MEP will vote for or against you.
The Background of MEPs
Looking at the Environment Committee you will see MEPs from a wide range of professional backgrounds.
- Pastors
- Political activists
- Charity workers
- Medical Doctors
- Lawyers
- Farmers
- Civil Servants
- Business men and women
- Academics
- Engineers
- Scientists
- Lobbyists
Top Professions for Politicians
I cross checked the background of this Committee with members of another Committee. The backgrounds are similar. Lawyers and political activists top the list.
Empircial Research
So, I have just spent a rainy December, using Vote Watch, to see how a group of MEPs of scientific backgrounds have voted. It’s dull work.
There are few votes that you could say are about science. The vote on DEHP is one of the few.
I looked at the voting habits of the scientists and doctors to see if their “scientific understanding” changed how they voted. It did not.
By far the best indicator of support is Party Membership.
One vote is not an ideal indicator. So, I looked at some similar scientific votes. Again and again the results were the same, but with an added twist. It seems that the more an MEP’s background is from science or as a doctor, the MEP is the less likely to back industry on the “science”.
This is good news for me. I understand lawyers and political activists best (I have been both. I won’t have to learn to think like a scientist.
Political party card and nationality is the best indicator of whether a politician will back your case. It seems clear that science is not going to win them over.