I’m not a huge fan of the Yanks’ ‘Yes we can’ slogans. Similarly, I do not think that praise for Obama by educated thinkers is a better indication of his ultimate worth than the simple passage of time. But the last year has seen him make many wise science decisions, all in the same year that has the UK has repeatedly made me wonder what the UK Government’s science advisors actually do.

Obama has appointed the first ever science Nobel laureate, Steven Chu, in cabinet, and the Harvard physicist Professor John Holdren and the MIT biologist Professor Eric Lander, both responsible for exceptional work in their field, as primary advisors. This is paralleled by a UK government with a chief scientific advisor, John Beddington, who, according to a report by MPs, "rather than champion evidence-based science within Government, appears to see his role as defending government policy or, in the case of homeopathy, explaining why there is no clear government policy."

Interestingly, "lack of evidence" is a general theme with us Brits, seen when David Nutt was sacked from a job he wasn’t even paid to do due to his evidence-based opinion on cannabis. A move which prompted three out of the six (also unpaid) government science advisors to resign.

Apart from lifting the stem cell funding ban, Obama has also announced increases in funding for science research, $550m for the National Science Foundation and $1bn for the National Institute of Health, whilst the UK Government have proposed serious cuts to science research, a move condemned by thousands of scientists and academics, including six Nobel laureates. Is the committee which decided to find homeopathy the same committee which decided to cut funding on evidence-based research?

Over the last few years, the British Government has repeatedly shown through cuts, policies on the NHS, and treatment of evidence and educated scientists that if you want to be valued as a scientist, in politics or otherwise, you should move to the USA.