Despite representatives from Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats going head-to-head on the issue of UK research funding at a recent Royal Society of Chemistry debate - none of the major political parties have yet added science to their list of policies. Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown have over the last 14 months at least spoken on science, whilst David Cameron has so far avoided any comment.

Disturbed by the lack of science in political discourse in the run-up to the election, the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) have written to the three leaders asking them to develop and communicate clear policies on science and engineering. Although they have not yet received any response, Hilary Leevers, Assistant Director of CaSE is optimistic about what commitments the parties will make in their manifestoes.
“We have made sure that science is firmly on the agenda for this election as it is so important to many departments,” she said, “Science can be a driver for growth and recovery and it needs to be recognised that it has a role to play there.”
This view is shared by the three parties who agreed during the RSC debate that science was critical for future economic prosperity and that a long-term, ring-fenced budget was essential.

Science and Innovation minister Lord Drayson, and Liberal Democrat science and technology spokesman, Evan Harris, agreed that the 2010-11 science budget should remain untouched. Adam Rutherford, editor of Nature said in a piece for The Guardian: “The Lib Dems’ Evan Harris is the only MP who genuinely appears to understand both the scientific process and the import of investing in that process to ensure our future. His position that the science budget can only be cut after we are out of recession is spot on.”

However, Adam Afriyie, shadow minister for science and innovation, hinted  his party intended to  cut research funding in order to fix the economy. “It is very difficult to see that in the short term lots more money will come to science,” he said, “I intend to see to it that you get the resources that you need to continue the vital research that puts Britain at the top of the league tables, but we first have to fix the economy to find those resources.”

So there are indications as to what the parties will do with science funding - but what else do we know of the three main parties’ intentions for science? Well, all three have said that they want to improve science education in schools, and want to see biology chemistry and physics offered as separate GSCEs at more schools. Additionally, the Conservatives want to overhaul the maths curriculum and suggest that potential science and maths teachers should have a 2.1 degree minimum. They also propose that their student loans are paid while they remain in the profession.
“Science isn’t just high up on the agenda for politicians, its gaining a wider audience as people begin to recognise that education, the NHS, crime and the economy are being influenced by science, making it a stronger issue” said Leevers

It may be high on the agenda - but we now need some concrete plans, and in this election more than any other the channels of communication to put across those plans are available.

A quick glance on Twitter shows that the social media sphere is proving to be a particularly popular area for science debate. Lord Drayson has been busy asking ‘tweeters’: “What’s yr fav thing Labour’s done for science?” and “What’s the main thing you want Labour to do next for science?” Dr Harris jumped on the social media bandwagon in March: “Been nagged into tweeting by my friends at CaSE, sci bloggers and all the free speechers, and goaded into it.”

As we await the major political parties’ manifestoes, the debate about science, education and funding will continue - but it is the is the precise nature of what the parties intend to do if in power that scientists, and all those who rate science as a key election issue really need to know.