A panel of scientists and doctors has told MPs that treating patients with homeopathy on the NHS is unethical and a dubious use of public money, arguing that there is insufficient clinical evidence to support such treatments.

“If the NHS  commitment to evidence-based medicine is more than a lip service, then money has to be spent on treatments that are evidence-based, and homeopathy isn’t,” said Edzard Ernst, a professor of complementary medicine at the Peninsula medical school in Exeter, quoted in the Guardian.

Homeopathy is based on the principle of “like cures like” - in other words, a substance taken in small amounts will cure the same symptoms it causes if it was taken in large amounts.

Homeopathic medicines are manufactured by repeatedly diluting and succussing (shaking) a preparation of the original substance, mainly plants and minerals, in water and alcohol. After dilution the medicine is added to lactose tablets or pillules, according to the Faculty of Homeopathy, a regulatory body established by parliament in 1950.

The NHS spends about 4 million pounds a year on homeopathy, the  group says.  There are four NHS homeopathic hospitals, which treat 55,000 patients a year, referred by GPs and NHS specialists.

More than 400 GPs treat 200,000 NHS patients a year with homeopathy.

While conventional drugs must undergo testing to prove their effectiveness, homeopathic remedies can be sold without being proven to work in clinical trials. They can be marketed for mild conditions if homeopathics agree on their effectiveness.

Scientists say the exemption should be removed because it is misleading.

Paul Bennett, Boots standards director, says the chemist will continue to stock homeopathic remedies.

“It’s about consumer choice and a large number of our customers think they work,” he said.

Do you believe homeopathic treatments work? Should they be available on the NHS?

A mouse that can speak? A monkey with Down’s Syndrome? Dogs with human hands or feet? British scientists want to know if such experiments are acceptable, or if they go too far in the name of medical research.

The Academy of Medical Sciences has launched a study to look at the use of animals containing human material in scientific research.

Using human material in animals is not new. Scientists have already created rhesus macaque monkeys that have a human form of the Huntingdon’s gene so they can investigate how the disease develops; and mice with livers made from human cells are being used to study the effects of new drugs.

But scientists say the technology to put ever greater amounts of human genetic material into animals is spreading quickly around the world — raising the possibility that some scientists in some places may want to push boundaries.

Religious groups are among those that are uneasy about the trend. One Catholic cardinal, Keith O’Brien of Edinburgh, has branded such work “Frankenstein science.”

Martin Bobrow, a professor of medical genetics at Cambridge University is chairman of a 14-member group looking into the issue.

He says: “Do most of us care if we make a mouse whose blood cells or liver are human? Probably not. But if it can speak? If it can think? Or if it is conscious in a human way? Then we’re in a completely different ballpark.”

What do you say?

The government’s attitude towards science is under the microscope this week over accusations that expert advice is being ignored if it fails to fit prevailing political agendas.

The row has been prompted by the sacking of the government’s chief drug adviser, Professor David Nutt, who has been making statements that do not fit in with the government’s hard line on drugs. Two of his colleagues resigned in protest over the weekend and more may follow.

Nutt has criticsed the Home Office decision to upgrade cannabis to a Class B drug, saying it is less harmful than alcohol and nicotine. He has previously said taking ecstasy is less dangerous than horse-riding and that consideration should be given to downgrading the classification of both ecstasy and LSD.

Liberal Democrat science spokesman Dr Evan Harris says: ”I fear there will be many more resignations unless the government acts to restore confidence among its independent scientific advisers.”

Home Secretary Alan Johnson says Nutt was sacked because he crossed the line between an advisor and a campaigner. ”You can do one or the other. You can’t do both,” he insisted.

Do you think Johnson has a point?

London’s Science Museum is asking visitors what they think are the greatest ever scientific inventions.

Its own choices include the Model T Ford, Nazi Germany’s pioneering V2 rocket, penicillin and the electric telegraph.  See the Museum’s full list here.

As part of the celebrations for its centenary this month, the museum is staging an exhibition featuring what it has chosen as the Top 10.

What inventions would you choose?

Should the brightest pupils be required to study extra science subjects?

The Confederation of British Industry wants the 250,000 pupils who get top marks in national science SAT exams at age 14 to be automatically opted in for a two-year “triple science” GCSE course covering physics, chemistry and biology.

The CBI says three-fifths of firms are having trouble recruiting science graduates and blame the problem on a long-term decline in science teaching at schools.

The number of specialist science teachers has halved over the past 20 years and only 7 percent of pupils currently take the triple science GCSE option — most take a double or single science course.

The CBI proposal would require a huge boost to science teaching — already promised by the government — but the industry body says its ambition could be reached by 2013.

Schools Minister Jim Knight maintains that increasing the number of science graduates is a top government priority but says opting-in the best pupils is not the answer.

What do you think should be done?