On Tuesday, Polly Toynbee wrote about a "bizarre tradition of rightwing bad science." An intriguing concept, but does it have any basis in reality? In the spirit of scientific inquiry, let us examine the evidence provided:
Well, in addition to George W Bush, "the last of the climate change deniers", we have Melanie Phillips in support of the MMR autism scare and Andrew Neil's editorial patronage of an alternative AIDS theory. Hmm, I won't dispute the specifics, but I'm not sure if the Bush-Phillips-Neil triumvirate really adds up to a tradition, bizarre or otherwise.
But hang about, that alternative AIDS thing rings a bell. Oh yes. Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa. Not exactly on message, as I recall. One notes, however, that Mbeki is generally regarded as a man of the left, which is unfortunate for Ms Toynbee's argument - though rather more unfortunate for the AIDS-ravaged people of Africa.
Other examples of leftwing bad science include the terrible damage done by Stalin's favourite biologist, Trofim Lysenko. Then there was the Mao's attempt to boost agricultural production by ordering a nationwide purge of the humble sparrow. The purge was successful, the resulting plague of insects rather less so. And let's not forget Pol Pot, who avoided the perils of bad science by the simple expedient of killing all the scientists.
Away from the totalitarian end of the leftwing spectrum, we have socially democratic Sweden, which was still implementing Alva Myrdal's crackpot eugenic theories well into the 1970s - including forced sterilisations of the "socially unfit".
Back home, we've had the benefit of nine years of New Labour government, not to mention eight years of Lord Sainsbury, the durable minister of science whose family interests in biotech and generous donations to the Labour party are nevertheless combined with responsibilities for policy on genetic modification.
Of course, the government has other sources of advice on this controversial issue - not least that of English Nature, which has often warned of the consequences that GM crops might have for wildlife. Sadly, English Nature did not foresee the consequences that this might have for itself.
And what of the quality of science demonstrated in the government's handling of the foot and mouth epidemic? Was it really necessary to slaughter ten million animals at a cost of several billion pounds? We'll never know for sure, because ministers refused to allow an independent scientific inquiry into the matter.
So, in place of Bush, Phillips and Neil I give you Mbeki, Stalin, Mao, Myrdal, Sainsbury and Blair. Of course, my examples are as unscientifically selective as Polly Toynbee's, which is why I've no intention of reversing her proposition that "the science-based realos tend to be on the left, conviction fundis on the right." I merely suggest that the Nobel Prize for Bolloxology is close run thing.
The irony of Ms Toynbee's views on "rightwing bad science" is that they form the preamble to an article on the revival of nuclear power in the UK, a revival taking place under a Labour government. Furthermore, the policies reponsible for this unwelcome development are inherently leftwing or, if you insist on splitting hairs, inherently statist. Polly Toynbee make the point admirably:
"Here's the conundrum: the kind of people now supporting nuclear are the same ones appalled by the vast state-sponsored groundnut schemes in the making: look at ID cards, gigantic IT pipedreams, Concorde, the Dome or other balloons swelling up from politicians' airy rhetoric. The history of nuclear power is the most grotesque example of a state programme founded on dreams mushrooming out of control because no one dared say 'Stop!'"
As a good conservative, I agree with every word - apart from the "most". But can Polly not see she's part of an equal and opposite conundrum: that of people who object to the massive state interference that props up the grotesquery of nuclear power, but who ceaselessly advocate massive state interference in so many other respects?
Now, I realise that the government has a duty to ensure certain standards of safety, security and equality, a duty that weight more heavily in some areas than others. Yet beyond these considerations, the disadvantages of top-down, centralised control are surely just as relevant to social policy. The leftwing advocates of diversity and localism in energy provision ought to ask themselves if there is really no way in which the same virtues could be of benefit to healthcare, education and welfare.