Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

A somewhat famous ESC researcher got named health minister by the former goverment. He did not do a very good job, and on top of that it was obvious that the goverment was exploiting his fame to look progressive without actually increasing research funding.

[Sheb]

Our prime minister is a chemist too.

But yeah, politics is a full-time job, and so is science. You can't really do both (Not sure which way I'll go yet.). Also, politicians have advisors. Those are the guys with the expertise, the politicians themselves should only be smart enough to understand their advisers, since there is no way they could be competent in all the fields required from them.

Also, from my experience, people that want to go in politics either study law or political science. Which is arguably more useful than science for a politician.

[lemon10]

Their background has a massive effect on what they legislate and the solutions they think work.
If you worked at wallstreet they you probably have faith in the free market, and believe the rich deserve what they make.
If you are a black politician then you will probably believe in things that will help the poor (since you were probably born poor due to social inequality).

Similarly, if you are (or were) a scientist, then you will believe in science, and think that it is the path forward and not be anti-science.

Yes, experts can and will advise you, but your background will always make a huge difference.

[lordcooper]

We've spent the last hundred years or so working towards a total separation of Science and State.  Why would you possibly want to undo this?  The last thing people need is some idiot scientist telling them that their beliefs are incorrect.

[Scoops Novel]

I'm not saying that science should become politics, and vice versa. I am saying that science could do with more attention, and a better approach.

[Loud Whispers]

We've spent the last hundred years or so working towards a total separation of Science and State.  Why would you possibly want to undo this?  The last thing people need is some idiot scientist telling them that their beliefs are incorrect.

...I do hope this is satire.

[ChairmanPoo]

Similarly, if you are (or were) a scientist, then you will believe in science, and think that it is the path forward and not be anti-science.

If this was true those notable exceptions with actual scientific studies would act towards that goal. In truth, as we can see, they act as the rest of politicians for the most part.

[Eagleon]

I think many scientists would make exceptional leaders. You don't go into science without taking a long hard look at how fallible our objective truths can be. The problem is that most scientists have more interesting things to worry about than popularity contests. The truly competent people aren't scheming egomaniacs, so the best we'll get is Dr. Evil.

[darkrider2]

We've spent the last hundred years or so working towards a total separation of Science and State.  Why would you possibly want to undo this?  The last thing people need is some idiot scientist telling them that their beliefs are incorrect.

...I do hope this is satire.

You and me both brother.

[lordcooper]

'tis a sad world where that could be so easily taken as genuine

[mainiac]

Let me just give a short description of the past two heads of state of major nations who were famous scientists:

Herbert Hoover: 31st President of the United States.  The most famous geologist of his generation, Herbert Hoover first rose to prominence by taking over a major but unprofitable coal mine in China and using a combination of shrewd negotiations and mining acumen to make it immensely more productive and profitable.  He became a national hero in the United States for overseeing the well managed US relief program to Europe after WWI that is widely credited with averting a famine in a Europe that could no longer feed itself nor afford to import food.  He leveraged this celebrity into the republican nomination for the president of the United States and won in a landslide.
In office Herbert Hoover's legacy is mostly his failure to adapt to the circumstances of the great depression.  He oversaw the largest economic contraction in US history and no recovery happened during his time in office.  He lost re-election in the largest landslide of the 20th century and left the republican party discredited for 20 years.

Albert Lebrun: Last president of the Third French Republic.  First in his class at the world renown Ecole Polytechnique as well as at the Ecole de Mines.  He entered politics at 29 after working as a mine engineer.  He was a popular centrist who became president in 32 and was re-elected 7 years later.  He remained president even as control of the french government shifted between the right and left showing that he was as popular a politician as he was talented an intellectual.
He is primarily remembered for his tepid response to the remilitarization of Germany under Hitler.  Lebrun was repeatedly outmanuvered diplomatically and saw France go from a position of complete dominance to surrender and occupation.  Lebrun was also noted for his failed economic policies.  At the time of it's collapse in 1940 the Third Republic had the dubious distinction of being the only major economy not to recover from the great depression.  Neighboring Germany had recovered more then half a decade ago at this point.

The moral of the story here is that being a great scientist does not make one qualified to be a politician.  Hoover and Lebrun were both very smart and talented men who were skillful at understanding human nature to boot.  In office they were both disasters.  And some of our greatest technological endevors were oversaw by people without a lick of scientific acumen.  LBJ was a career politician but he was able to put the right people in charge of the moon landing.  Abe Lincoln was a backwater hick but that gave him the drive to fund the amazing railroad system that was his great non-military legacy.

Now I will walk back from this a little to say that there are some political positions that clearly do need scientists having a strong voice.  We should not have the likes of Ted Stevens and Todd Akin on congressional committees for science and technology.  We should have scientists strongly represented on such committees.  But for most elected positions the ability to do scientific research is largely irrelevant.  What we more need are people who are good at understanding and making use of other people's work towards policy ends.  But that is hardly exclusive to scientific matters.

[Sheb]

You said exactly what I would have said if I had your historical knowledge and wasn't a lazy ass.

[kaijyuu]

Educational and informative.

Moral of the story is: Management is a skill of its own, and other skills aren't required for it. Maybe that's why "kicked upstairs" is a thing.

[darkrider2]

You said exactly what I would have said if I had your historical knowledge and wasn't a lazy ass.

If mainiac doesn't quote this and put it in his sig I will be upset.