Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists? (NY Times OpEd)

[pinto]

Really interesting opinion piece on our approach to electoral politics. Author's bio snip below. ~ pinto

Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

By John Allen Paulos
February 13, 2012, 10:32 pm

I’ve 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.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/why-dont-americans-elect-scientists/?hp

John Allen Paulos, a professor of mathematics at Temple University, is the author of eight books, including “Innumeracy” and “A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper.”

[razorman]

1. Unlike politicians, scientists are expected to actually know something.

[Demeter]

8. Scientists know where they aren't wanted

and putting up with the political madness is something that the scientific mind cannot endure.

[Myrina]

2. This is America, dammit! We don't need no smarty-pants edumacated leaders!

We want bumpkins we can relate to, have a beer with, torture some frogs with ... you know, good ole' boys who won't make us feel like the backwards inbred slobs so many of us are.

[FedUp_Queer]

6. Exactly.

Too much book learnin.

[whathehell]

16. Lame...President Obama has plenty of that.

Thinking that scientists are the only "smart" people is..um..dumb, IMO.

[FedUp_Queer]

17. Somehow, I don't think that was the point.

[whathehell]

18. Really?

You, the OP, and a few others seemed to conflate the lack of scientists in office with

a lack of "brains"....How could this be off point?

[FedUp_Queer]

21. Dude, really.

I did no such thing. The piece did no such thing. It lamented the lack of scientists in office. I didn't say, nor did I read, that no scientists meant lack of brains. The piece lamented no scientists as lacking a certain thought process and knowledge that scientists bring. Neither I, nor the piece, said no scientists mean no brains. Frankly, we could do with more scientists because we need more people who can think analytically and empirically, rather than merely analytically and philosophically. I'm not a scientist. I'm a lawyer. However, there are too many damn lawyers in government. There are too many "business people" in government. There are not enough scientists, doctors, physicists or engineers etc. That fact means we have lawyers, business people, etc. making policy regarding science (i.e. climate change, energy policy, etc.) that scientists would be better doing. Regarding things like climate change or nuclear power plants, for instance, I'd much rather have scientists discussing the dangers of nuclear contamination from uranium 235, 238 or whatever isotope leaks out and climate change than debate and discuss the problems and how to fix them rather than non-science people having conversations about these subjects that boil down to one side accusing the other of some silly global, socialist conspiracy to take down capitalism as some do regarding climate change. There is something to be said for applying the scientific method of inquiry to some problems and seeing where the facts come out with a minimal amount of ideology.

[whathehell]

25. Dude, really and truly

you certainly did "such thing" and anyone can look at your original post and verify that

You are expanding, and "finetuning" it all in THIS post,

but neither you, nor one other did so initially -- It was all about "brains" and "no brains".

Sorry

[FedUp_Queer]

27. Ok.

Fine. You're right. That is exactly what everyone meant. Scientists are smart everyone else dumb. I know that's what I got from it (which I guess proves the guy right since I'm not a scientist).

[whathehell]

30. LOL.

It may not be "what everyone meant", but it is, essentially, what you and Myrina said.

[whathehell]

13. Please...One can be brilliant without being a scientist.

The President is but one example.

[FedUp_Queer]

22. As I've said...

I don't think anyone would debate that, nor did the article say that. The part about the president being brilliant...that I'd debate.

[whathehell]

26. And again, what I am saying,

is that your initial post didn't express that, however much you now wish to backpeddle.

Apart from that, I wasn't addressing the OP, I was addressing you and Myrina.

Your response to the OP's question of why there weren't many scientists in electoral politics

was that it required "Too much booklearnin".

Myrina -- who is apparently wise enough not to try and "undo" her initial comment,

said "We don't need no smarty pants"

Not quite the "nuanced" response you now want to convey.

P.S. As far as a "debate" on the president's brilliance, be my guest

He graduated with honors from two highly prestigious universities, and his I.Q., at least

in childhood, registered in as 165 and 172.

[FedUp_Queer]

28. I'm very sorry.

That you lead such a humorless life. IQ? Are you kidding me? That sounds like something a kid would say on the playground. It's an utterly meaningless metric (since it's changeable). Where he graduated? It means nothing. Smart guy? Yes. Brilliant? Sorry. Einstein? Brilliant. Sagan? Brilliant. da Vinci? Brilliant. A "brilliant constitutional scholar" would not approve the extrajudicial killing of American citizens or argue for the indefinite detention of (which he did in a speech in 2009 at the National Archives) for uncharged and acquitted individuals. But, you go with that.

Now, let me clarify so you don't mistake me. Do I think he's "brilliant?" No. Do think he's an "intellectual?" Yes. Do think he's "very smart?" Yes. Do I think he's "dumb?" No. Do I think he's one of the smarter presidents we've had lately? Yes. Would we do well to have more scientists in government? Yes.

[whathehell]

31. Project much?

I'm very sorry that YOU lead such an insecure, "humorless life"

that your are unable to admit the smallest of mistakes.

You come off as one of the saddest "sore losers" I've seen here in awhile.

How interesting to know you think "I.Q." and the schools where he graduated mean "nothing".

What, in your estimable view, is the true criteria for "brilliance"?

Perhaps you could start a thread on the subject.

I'm sure the rest of the board would be mesmerized by your personal definition

of "brilliance" and your theory regarding Obama's lack of such.

Go ahead...Let's see if you have the courage of your convictions.

[FedUp_Queer]

32. Sorry...I'm not that important.

I don't think I could mesmerize anyone with my definition because I'm not that important...and I'm not brilliant so I couldn't speak from personal experience. I just don't think you're that important. The bottom line is this: we need more scientists in government. Not only scientists are smart people. A person's IQ is meaningless. Where a person went to school is meaningless (Bush went to Harvard and Yale). I don't think Obama is "brilliant." Smart, yes, but not brilliant. And fine...I'm a "sore loser." Though, I'm not sure what I've lost. I gave an opinion. You misinterpreted it. End of story. I will say this: when Obama makes some sort of ground-breaking observation about human behavior or the relative nature of time and distance or an equation that cracks the string theory conundrum, then I would think he's brilliant. Until then, I don't think so. But again, what I say doesn't matter. I don't think he is...plain and simple. Since you made the assertion he is, it would normally be up to you to explain your reason for saying so, but I'm not interested.

[whathehell]

35. Since when does one have to be "important" to start a thread on DU?

Having said that, I'm sorry you feel so "unimportant"

but since your definition of such (along with "brilliance&quot seems to be based solely

on scientific accomplishment, I suppose I can understand why, although I don't

agree with it.

How sad that you define "importance" and "brilliance" so narrowly.

Since you're not a scientist yourself, it condems you to low self-esteem

and a sense of "second best".

I feel sorry for you, frankly.

That being said, I'm not interested in communicating with you further.

Buh bye

[frazzled]

3. Well, I think a couple of reasons

(1) Not all scientists may be good administrators (or orators, or have what it takes to do retail politics and fundraising--getting campaign donations is not like applying for a NSF grant or schmoozing at a conference on particle physics).

(2) Not many scientists may WANT to run for office. It means that they can't do research, etc.

(3) We do, for the first time in a long time, have a scientist with stellar credentials and administrative skills as Secretary of Engery:

he was a professor of physics and molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Berkeley and the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where his research was concerned primarily with the study of biological systems at the single molecule level.[3] Previously, he had been a professor of physics at Stanford University. ...

Steven Chu is a co-winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997 for the "development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light", shared with Claude Cohen-Tannoudji and William Daniel Phillips. He is a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society and the Academia Sinica, and is a foreign member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and of the Korean Academy of Science and Engineering.[26] He was also awarded the Humboldt Prize by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation in 1995.

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

With all this, he doesn't really seem all that appreciated; and he has made some mistakes (but who hasn't).

[Myrina]

12. You point out one of my pet peeves ...

.... since when does a President need to be an accomplished fundraiser? It's grated my cookies over the past few cycles that instead of talking about positions and issues and credentials, the only thing that seems to get someone to 'front runner' status is 'how much money he's been able to raise'.

The US isn't (although we could probably use one) a telethon.

That right there is indicative of the biggest problem we have right now.
It's not about qualifications or ideas or plans, it's about 'what kind of used-car salesman can we get atop the ticket?'.

I'm sure the usual suspects are going to come out from their hidey-holes and call me naive and cutesy and 'a purist' but Fuuhh ...
think back 50-75 years .... when did we take this turn?

[KansDem]

4. Folks need to be able to "slip in and out" of Congress (state legislatures, as well)

That's why we never see plumbers, teachers, firefighters, and the like running for Congress.

We do see mostly business execs (administrators who's positions will be waiting for them when they leave Congress), and attorneys ("Hey, I'm running for Congress!" "Good luck! Your position here at the firm will be waiting for you when you come back!&quot .

In other words, any profession where you won't have to fill out an application form and submit a resume and cover letter with references when you want to go back to work after your time in Congress.

[Blue_Tires]

5. American politics is incompatible with rational thought...

That's why fearmongers, cronyist corporate slicksters, self-appointed men of god and attorneys dominate Washington...

[libinnyandia]

7. Jimmy Carter, with a degree in physics, was beat by Ronald Reagan, who had a degree in

political science and economics. Reagan's knowledge of economics must be responsible for the great success of Reaganomics )

[Ron Obvious]

10. I didn't know he had a degree back then

Maybe I wasn't paying a lot of attention back then, but I didn't even know Carter had a degree in Physics until I came across a mention of it in a Stephen J. Gould book years later. I had assumed he was just a peanut farmer from Georgia.

I suppose they didn't think it would be an asset to make a point of it back then, and that just underscores the question in the OP. As a society, we don't really value education; we just say we do.

[monmouth]

9. Scientists are, for the most part, logical thinkers and too damned smart to get into

the sewer of politics..

[whathehell]

14. As stated above, scientists are not alone in being "logical thinkers" or in being "smart".

Your possible biases to the contrary.

President Obama, who registered an I.Q. of between 165 and 172 as a child,

might be your most obvious example.

[treestar]

11. They think in overly exact and black and white ways

Politics is about people. People don't follow predictable rules. Boyle's law never changes. People, on the other hand, are not ultimately predictable. Not to put anyone down - everyone's different talents are needed. Being smart enough to be a scientist is great, but it's a certain kind of smart.

Dealing with people and politics requires a tolerance for the fact there is often no right answer. There are issues and choices.

People get into law school and find they can't handle it because there is no right answer. There are only arguments. You can get the question right coming to different conclusions - it's recognizing the issue and analyzing it and it all involves people, who can never behave with absolute, predictable precision.

[whathehell]

15. Thank you...n/t

[LeftishBrit]

19. Science is not all about 'absolute predictable precision'

Indeed science itself shows that many things can never be absolutely predicted with precision; cf chaos theory, for example.

Boyle's law may not change, but lots of things in scientific theory, and in the universe, do change.

I don't think that electing scientists is a panacea (two words here: Margaret Thatcher); but the idea that scientists regard everything as predictable, and are likely to treat people as robots, is simply not true. In fact, the idea of absolute rigid rules for everything tends to come either from the ultra-religious; from the sort of lawyer who considers that 'hard cases make bad law'; or from very ideological economists.

[treestar]

23. I realize that

But ultimately, the scientist looks for "the answer." And there is nothing wrong with that.

I once read that medical diagnosis is and "art" and not a "science." Medicine contains elements of both.

Dealing with people is purely an art. There are people who try to make it scientific - studies that "prove" women aren't as good at Math. But the bottom line is, people don't obey these "scientific rules" as no matter how many other women eschew math, that doesn't mean that the one who finds it fascinating has anything "wrong" with her.

One can't research, really, the ultimate way people will react. There's no way to do biological tests on Kim Jong Un to figure out what's going to happen. He just has to be dealt with day to day.

[LeftishBrit]

33. Scientists tend to look for 'the answers, plural' and even more for 'the questions'..

not for 'the answer'.


In fact, although science cannot teach one how to predict a specific individual's behaviour, science has taught us quite a lot of things about people: for example, indeed, that the stereotype that 'women aren't as good at math' is not accurate. And that children use multiple strategies when learning maths or reading, and no one teaching method is going to work equally well with all children. And that homosexuality is not a choice. And, going further back, that mental illness is not caused by demonic possession.

As I said in another post, there may be differences between fields of science, and a computer programmer or engineer may be more likely to take a 'one right answer' approach than a biologist or medical scientist or research mathematician. But overall, it is politicians, not scientists as a whole, who tend to wish to oversimplify things; and that may be why not many scientists choose to go into politics.

Of course, there are some scientists who do try to find a single solution for everything, and don't take individual differences, or other multiple factors, into account; but they are bad scientists. Sometimes because they are under pressure from administrators or funding organizations that think that science should be run as a business. Sometimes just because they aren't particularly good at what they do.

I don't think that any particular background, whether in the sciences, the arts, medicine, or any other field is going to make someone a good politician of itself. However, I think that it would be better if more politicians had some sort of background outside politics (or big business) - whether as artists, scientists, doctors, industrial workers (as many British Labour politicians did until Thatcher basically destroyed British industry), teachers, etc., etc.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

20. There are TWO possible right answers. I have a law degree.

From an excellent school famous for producing trial attorneys.

Engineers and scientists are very frustrated with the legal system because they are used to finding ONE right answer. I've seen a programmer on a jury panel asking lots of questions because he was frustrated by the possibility of two right answers.

[treestar]

24. My scientist father is always hearing about some court case in the news

And saying "this is an open and shut case!"

He really gets frustrated over the OJ verdicts. Not guilty in the criminal case, but liable in the civil case. Even with an advanced degree in science, the concept that any verdict is just an approximation eludes or puzzles or upsets him. No amount of explaining the differences in burdens of proof between the two systems is satisfactory!

[yurbud]

29. I think there's a much simpler explanation: scientists would be embarrassed to lie about facts

not primarily on moral grounds but because it would make them look stupid and incompetent.

Politicians lie not just about judgment calls but facts all the time.

The also sidestep straightforward questions with non sequiturs.

If you asked a scientist about the hazards of this or that pollutant, or the obstacles to widespread adoption of alternative energy, they could not respond with a discourse on the virtues of the free market to fix pollution or fuzzy objections to alternative energy--they simply can't.

[whathehell]

36. Please...Were the scientists in Nazi Germany embarrassed about that?

[LeftishBrit]

34. I think there's a difference between different sorts of scientific backgrounds

It's my impression that engineers and computer scientists are much more likely to go for the 'single answer' approach than for example biologists, medical scientists, physicists or research mathematicians. I suspect those fields do indeed attract the sort of people who want to find algorithms to predict everything. However, I think that for instance, economists on the whole are more attracted to the 'single answer' than scientists.

[Doctor_J]

37. Scientists are prototypes of what the teabaggers hate -

smart, enlightened, open-minded, and constantly searching for the truth, even if it's inconvenient.