The mediarati seem to be deeply disturbed by the election result as a whole and by the toppling of Evan Harris in Oxford West/Abingdon in particular. Lib Dem Harris lost by a mere 176 votes to Conservative Nicola Blackwood, but his defeat has been widely interpreted as a serious assault on Science itself. Harris was the science spokesperson for his party and member of the Science and Technology Committee. Support and sympathy for him has come from Lord Drayson, Richard Dawkins and Ben Goldacre among others. Mark Henderson, writing in The Times, called it the most ‘damaging result’ of the election (really) and expressed despair that, with only 71 MPs with a science background left, the House of Commons was denuded of ‘scientific expertise.’

It is striking and informative that there has been such concern over just how many scientists there are in Parliament. There has been precisely zero concern as to how many MPs have backgrounds in Fine Art or English or even, and perhaps more to the point, how many economists there are, let alone people who have much, if any, experience of the real world outside the Westminster Village full stop. The only precedent I can think of for this kind of concern is the introduction of quotas for women MPs. And, just as that represented a profoundly anti-democratic sentiment - forcing supposedly backward and bigoted voters to walk a feminist line - so too is this reaction expressive of a contempt for voters who have delivered the ‘wrong’, in this case anti-scientific, result. What’s next? Quotas for scientists?

Harris himself is actually something of a conviction politician, not just a scientist. He has done good and principled work on free speech, libel and his defence of animal research was notably brave in an anti-human, pro-guinea pig age. Although I absolutely draw the line at his support for assisted suicide for the terminally ill. But it is Harris’ modish support for evidence-based policy (as seen in the David Nutt case) rather than his political principles that lies behind the feeling that Westminster has lost something of peculiar value. There is a sentiment that the country is now more in need of experts than popular democracy: that we should be governed by sober scientists rather than passionate politicos. The Lib Dem PPC for Bristol South, Dr Mark Wright, believes that, in a technological complex world, ‘more and more things are simply beyond the grasp of people who aren’t experts in that particular field.’ Which is bad news for the value of your vote. Not that your vote will matter if the New Scientist has its way, arguing that ‘it is critical that the parties develop a consensus on science policies for the sake of the economy in the long term.’

Sholto Byrnes in the New Statesman, responding to Rev George Pitcher’s ‘hallelujah’ that Harris had gone, was most offended by leaflets given out by a local priest, Lynda Rose, during the campaign in Oxford, alerting voters to Harris’ positions on abortion and assisted dying. For him this ’blatant and ad hominem interference in the political process demonstrates how much voices for secularism are needed in parliament, although that message evidently did not get through to the voters.’ Silly voters. You are meant to listen to us! A local constituent is thereby found guilty of the crime of interfering in the political process by, umm, being political: revealing Harris’ actual policy positions in a lively fashion. Harris, so hurt by being called ‘Dr Death’ in reference to his pro-euthanasia position, responded with the chilling accusation that Rose represented ‘an anonymous group, using money from no one knows where’. You can just imagine Harris mentally ticking her off for not having had her leaflet properly peer-reviewed. The desire here would seem to be to silence those who - like Chris Grayling - dare to express unfashionable opinions in public and, in fact, the leaflet’s author does seem to have been subjected to a number of abusive telephone threats for having the temerity to speak her mind and engage herself in - what should be - the hurly burly of electioneering.

Strong expressions of religious faith are particularly beyond the pale these days and the Harris-lament is as much over the loss of a member of the National Secular Society as it is the loss of a scientist. And, here is the thing: Nicola Blackwood, the new MP for Oxford West, is an evangelical Christian and member of the Christian Conservative Fellowship. Is this, just possibly, what has really got the goat of a media commentariat which likes its politics faith-lite at best but never conviction heavy? The idea that a Christian, and a singing Christian at that, could be preferred to one of them, to a man of science? That, to some, seems to represent the worst kind of ‘old’, ‘tribal’, politics in which voters have dangerous passions which would be best contained by reason.

I actually support a number of Blackwood’s positions in the same way I support some of Harris’. She is good on faith schools and on the importance of religious freedom and correct to resist secularism as the new holy grail. I support neither of them fully though and maybe it was just as difficult a call for voters in West Oxford? Personally, I’m rather pleased with the result given that, on these key issues, I would rather see a debate on the (vital) freedom of religious organisations to discriminate on the basis of their beliefs than I would want to give even tacit support to the idea of more ‘experts’ in Parliament. But, crucially, the point is that the result was the result and it should not be bemoaned as somehow not being the right one or as a loss for science. By all means be upset that a Lib Dem and Evan Harris in particular lost, but not because he is a scientist.

Certainly the calls for Harris to stand for re-election seem couched more in terms of a wish to overturn the ‘wrong’ result than anything else. Or will there now be calls for him to be elevated to the Lords in order to keep his expertise to hand? To become a Portillo-style media pundit? To free him from the danger of having to engage with the electorate again? And, certainly, Harris may be now reflecting whether or not he should have spent rather more time in his constituency - knocking on doors, kissing babies and convincing voters of the value of science - and rather less time in research committee rooms poring over the small print of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.

And it’s that part of the reaction to this election that I find most disturbing and of which the Harris example is so pointed. The feeling that it’s anachronistic to have to go to the people for endorsement. That whenever the ‘correct’ result – ie, whatever is the latest political wet dream of the media and liberal elites - is rejected, the cry of ‘that’s not FAIR’ goes up. That the people are so stupid that they vote even for Christians. That elections are a terrifying prospect that should be avoided at all costs or at least ameliorated through reforms like PR. Who knows, with a party list system, prospective MPs might not even have to go into constituencies and argue for what they believe in at all? After all, they, as scientists, will know better than us.

Voting is, and long may it remain so, a messy business. Not a sterile laboratory. Let’s not endorse calls for more scientific experts as a new expression of an elite desire to ‘clean up’ politics. Let’s argue for excellent science education for us all. And let’s have passionate debate and argument that might help draw out the battle lines of a new politics around what really matters to us.