Are the Greens anti-science?
That's what I'll be asking in a piece for The Sunday Politics this weekend.
It's a very hot topic amongst the "geekerati" (for want of a better word) and everything really seems to have come to a head with a GM crop trial based in Rothamsted.
You can read all about the research and the protestors plans to disrupt it here on the BBC website. Basically scientists want to see how a new form of GM wheat grows in the open. They've added a gene that occurs naturally in other plants to make the wheat smell bad to insect pests. The end result is wheat that needs less pesticide so is cheaper to grow and better for the environment.
Well that's the theory, but of course to see if the new wheat can grow in the real world you need to do the experiement. But given the aims it all sounds pretty green. As one researcher says in our report "are you really against this? Because it could have a lot of environmental benefits"
What the BBC report perhaps doesn't touch on is how many people with an interest in science were also present at the Rothamsted protest. Their aim to debate with the protestors. Both Tom Chivers in the Telegraph and Martin Robbins in The Guardian have interesting articles on this fight back by the science literate.
In these days of coalitions and protest votes it is possible the Green Party may well become an louder political voice in local and national politics. So their position on evidence-based policy is important.
There's no doubt the anti-GM protests of the last decade have had a crushing impact on the science in the UK and Europe. Indeed in its 2010 manifesto The Green Party said it would push for a Europe-wide ban on GM food.
As science fights back I'm starting to hear that approach may well be evolving. Tune in to BBC One at midday to find out more.