Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

[n2doc]

By JOHN ALLEN PAULOS

Ive visited Singapore a few times in recent years and been impressed with its wealth and modernity. I was also quite aware of its world-leading programs in mathematics education and naturally noted that one of the candidates for president was Tony Tan, who has a Ph.D. in applied mathematics. Tan won the very close election and joined the government of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who also has a degree in mathematics.

China has even more scientists in key positions in the government. President Hu Jintao was trained as a hydraulic engineer and Premier Wen Jiabao as a geomechanical engineer. In fact, eight out of the nine top government officials in China have scientific backgrounds. There is a scattering of scientist-politicians in high government positions in other countries as well. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has a doctorate in physical chemistry, and, going back a bit, Margaret Thatcher earned a degree in chemistry.

One needn’t endorse the politics of these people or countries to feel that given the complexities of an ever more technologically sophisticated world, the United States could benefit from the participation and example of more scientists in government. This is obviously no panacea — Herbert Hoover was an engineer, after all — but more people with scientific backgrounds would be a welcome counterweight to the vast majority of legislators and other officials in this country who are lawyers.

Among the 435 members of the House, for example, there are one physicist, one chemist, one microbiologist, six engineers and nearly two dozen representatives with medical training. The case of doctors and the body politic is telling. Everyone knows roughly what doctors do, and so those with medical backgrounds escape the anti-intellectual charge of irrelevance often thrown at those in the hard sciences. Witness Senator Bill Frist, Gov. Howard Dean and even Ron Paul.
more
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/why-dont-americans-elect-scientists/

[provis99]

1. because scientists aren't millionaire lawyers and businessmen.

when was the last time we elected a union leader? Heck, when was the last time we elected a working class person?

[ThoughtCriminal]

2. Americans have been conditioned to think of scientists as

Godless Bond Villains

[eridani]

3. You'd have to drop out of doing science in order to run for public office

Things in most fields move too rapidly to catch up again when you leave office. Although I do wonder why more scientists don't consider politics as a second career.

[saras]

4. Ever worked anywhere where the primary social distinction was nerds vs. suits?

It's kind of like asking why America doesn't elect socialists. They do just fine in northern Europe, right?

Personally I'd like to live in a country that elects polymaths. There are people out there who accomplish a terrifying amount of stuff, in far too many fields. Maybe they're all too smart to want to be involved in politics, realizing they'd spend their lives in ineffective struggle with stupid people.

[cantbeserious]

5. Simple - Conservative Christians Are Afraid Of Darwin and Sex Education

eom

[Ptah]

6. Brian Schweitzer, Montana Governor

Schweitzer earned his Bachelor of Science degree in international agronomy from Colorado State University in 1978
and a Master of Science in soil science from Montana State University, Bozeman in 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schweitzer

[Liora24]

7. Scientists aren't always the best choice

To be fair there are plenty of scientists, mathematicians and engineers who have a "conservative," black-or-white mindset and very rigid thinking. After all math and science do promote that either something is either right or wrong, but in the real world things aren't cut and dry. If you have someone who's thought is purely "math-based" then everything becomes a numbers game about generating profits, and we know where that's gotten us. Therefore, I wouldn't necessarily want those people running the country because we also need people to think about the human element. Scientists should be appointed to positions where they're needed. The head of the EPA should have a background in environmental science and not be a corporate shill, and the people running the economy should have economics degrees hopefully. Other good backgrounds for politicians which are more technical are sociology and psychology.

[LeftishBrit]

8. It is not true that maths and science treat everything as 'either right or wrong'

There are lots of debates and complexities in science, and maths at an advanced level involves mostly reasoning, rather than 'right or wrong' arithmetic facts.

I certainly don't think that electing a scientifically trained person is a panacea for all evils. Scientists can be just as prejudiced and mean-spirited as anyone else. Margaret Thatcher was a research chemist by origin! But science is far more complex than just 'right vs wrong'.

And most academic mathematicians and scientists whom I've met are if anything abnormally uninterested in financial profit calculations; if they were, they could probably earn a lot more money doing something else, but they are too fascinated by their subjects. That may also explain why most don't become politicians. Just as most poets and artists and composers don't become politicians - they have absorbing interests that they want to pursue full-time.

[tinrobot]

11. Science teaches people to think.

Science is not all about numbers, it's also about process. Science teaches people to think problems through rationally. They learn a process of investigation that leads to a greater truth. These processes can be applied to a lot more than just petri dishes and particle accelerators.

As for profits - I would suspect lawyers and business school graduates are more concerned with profits than people in the sciences. Sadly, the lawyers and business school types make up most of our elected officials.

Personally, I'd rather have rational thinkers in charge of government than irrational ones.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

9. Scientists are too smart to run

they know the game is rigged

[HopeHoops]

10. That would be too logical.

[Johonny]

12. most scientist aren't very politically active

For whatever reason I find most scientist are not very politically active. Many get funding from the government one way or another any thus find it disadvantageous to be too openly political. Others suffer a stigma of being attached to politics. People will accuse their work of being more politically motivated. Lastly a lot of scientists are simply very narrowly focused on their research or lack social skills (however I find this more an excuse). This isn't to say scientists do not have political opinions, or do not vote or believe in social causes. I just find despite most feeling that they have strong intellectual power and legislating a government mostly a scientific experiment in which society is the test subject, most scientist don't feel compelled to work in politics, yet alone run.

[Posteritatis]

13. Because a lot of scientists aren't interested in running, and because the public fears science. (nt)

[cbrer]

14. Sorry, It'll never work

Americans like theatre, Americans LOVE drama.

Plus scientists will be able to see through voting fraud, dishonest voting machines, and count manipulation immediately!

[GeorgeGist]

15. Perhaps because Americans in general aren't good at science.

[Glassunion]

16. At times they are too smart for their own good.

The smartest person I know is a prime example.

When I say smart, this guy is brilliant.

If we elected him to office, within 10 days the entire planet would be at war with the US.

[Odin2005]

17. Scientists don't run, they hate politics.

[Johonny]

18. maybe they just aren't trained for it

If you are in a major that might advance to law school, teachers and your fellow student are more open to talking about politics as a future option. The people I know now in politics were in majors where politics was an open option to them. Something taught them that it was ok to end up working in politics.

However people in science majors are generally not taught to think of politics as a career opportunity. Just reverse I think most scientist are taught being too political might cost you future grants and funding. It doesn't help when you see major scientists give basically scientific advice and are accused of their work being politically slanted and thus see their scientific reputation often tarnished in the general public's eyes. For many people a person like Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould were just political hacks with no science value or out put, not because of their science out put, but because they dared to be openly political with their science. Same thing goes for climate scientist, many who aren't political at all but work in an area that was politicized. This doesn't make a future scientist want to be politically active.

Do scientist hate politics? Not many I know. Most have political opinions, vote, and talk politics of the day around the lunch table just like everyone else.

[Odin2005]

19. Kim Stanley Robinson mentions that in his global warming trilogy.