UK politics is devoid of scientific thinking

Rupert Pennant-Rea’s laudable if somewhat belated interest in science (“ Why I am studying science for the first time at the age of 70”, October 3) echoes previous comments on this issue ( Letters, May 11), to which might usefully be added further food for thought and, hopefully, action.

In quoting C P Snow’s Reith lectures of 1959 on The Two Cultures, Mr Pennant-Rea highlights the current parlous state of British politics. The recent humanities-led approach to government is based on arguments supporting positions of belief in the absence of evidence (such as Brexit is good). In contrast previous scientific-led approaches have been based on logical analysis (quantitative where possible) based on demonstrable evidence. The last scientist in senior government in the UK was, of course, Margaret Thatcher, who would now be recognised by many as having taken calculated risks and decisive actions (for example union reforms, the Falklands conflict and so on).

Since 1990 UK politics has been devoid of scientific thought and instead has been dominated by the products of the humanities faculties. A detailed look at the current and recent cabinets reveals a near complete dearth of scientific appreciation, leading to most decidedly uncalculated risks taken in the almost complete absence of evidence (for example the Iraq war and Brexit).

It is difficult to imagine any of the current generation of politicians making significant change in the short term. But modern China has shown what can be accomplished in a generation. One first step to consider might be for leading universities to demand a good A-level in mathematics or other Stem subject (science, technology or engineering) as an entrance requirement for all degrees to winnow out what is already an over-crowded system.