Print

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

[Scoops Novel]

After recalling a video on this subject, which after re-watching as i overheard it at the time, I'll post if applicable, i began ruminating on this subject. There are scientists in office, occasionally high office, such as Angela Merkel who I've discovered as a physicist, but in the states at least, as an onlooker i do get the feeling that you don't see an enormous amount of people with a scientific background who make it into politics, nor is it commonly very big on many political agenda's. Despite their results, science budgets are frequently cut, studies are ignored or picked up as seen useful for one agenda or another (i don't need to say anything about the republicans), indeed if they're trying to give the impression of knowing anything about it, and vice versa, if it's reported to start with.

It's understandable as to why you don't see many scientists pursue this route, but I often see people on these forums wishing they could run in the states and have any hope of success. How would you react to a candidate who knew what he was doing on such matters? Adding to that, what important science related issues need to be addressed in your opinion, particularly asides from immediately obvious issues such as global warming and climate change, though they of course more then welcome points of discussion. And do you think he/she would have an audience?

[Moghjubar]

I think the general response is,
"S/He's a witch, burn Him/Her!!!"

There are many reasons why scientists don't take the political route... mostly because they want to actually have a chance at doing something useful (and some would rather dig knee deep in rhino dung than go thru the messy world politics is).  Generally low electability due to anti-science is another reason...

In any case, they would need to be a generalist.   Anyone too far into one thing might not be able to see the forest for the -insert micro-organisms on a single tree-.

[kaijyuu]

Well there are two possible views I can think of that might affect whether this would be a "good" or "bad" thing to happen.

1) Representatives are there to represent the people, not be experts at anything themselves. Their job is to listen to what the people want and act accordingly. That does not require any experience in any field, as they're just acting on the will of the people. The people themselves are the ones under obligation to be educated.

2) Representatives are more like caretakers we put in charge. In this view, they don't really have to listen to the people past getting elected. Once they're in office, they should act according to the best of their ability, and as they see fit. In this view, being an expert in stuff like science is *very* valuable, as they will make informed decisions.



The reality is somewhere inbetween, but depending on what one thinks is the "ideal" politician, this may or may not be very important. Personally, I dunno, since representative politics is something I think pretty flawed, but I guess I'd prefer they know what they're talking about before voting on anything. Act on the will of the people, but in smart ways, which would require education in what they're dealing with (which includes scientific things).

[MorleyDev]

I dunno about flat-up politicians ala the political parties, but maybe something like the House of Lords only with leading figures in the sciences (on an unrelated note, I reckon we of the UK should sack the House of Lords and replace them with leading figures in the sciences).

[10ebbor10]

I know the Belgiam Governement sets up Councils of specialists for quite a lot of stuff. I believe there are/were about 200 of them.

Problem was/is it became a complicated mess, and some councils weren't disbanded even long after their purpose was gone. I mean, untill a few years ago, there still was one for the Governement and relations with Colonial Congo.

[MonkeyHead]

Governments still have adivsors to consult. I had a professor years ago who lectured me in atmospheric thermodynaics (man I hated the course so much I avoid thermodaynics as much as possible in my work now, but he was a cool guy) who was part of the Clinton administration, advising Bill himself on Science policy. He was found dead in a massage parlour suffering a heart attack while under the attentions of a lady of negotiable affection, conincidentally enough while on a trip to the White House.

[Scoops Novel]

Adding to that, what do you think are important science related issues which need to be addressed?

[darkrider2]

*twitch*

The sheer number of ways this thread could be derailed is astounding, just from the OP alone.

[Scoops Novel]

That's the idea. Go ahead .

[Flying Dice]

Pshaw. scientists in representative politics? What we need in this modern age are philosopher-kings.

[Loud Whispers]

Pshaw. scientists in representative politics? What we need in this modern age are philosopher-kings.

I counter your philosopher-kings with science-emperors.

[MonkeyHead]

[Guardian G.I.]

Scientists? Why should anyone in the West bother with their representation in politics? These crazy brainiacs are the least important members of today's Western society (unlike rich bankers, brokers, corporate CEOs and other businessmen, which are absolutely crucial for mankind's survival, for sure!)

The times when scientists were important (and were respected because of that) has ended long ago.

[Loud Whispers]

Kind of around the dark ages.

[Cthulhu]

I kind of feel like both fields require you to dedicate yourself to them.  Especially science.  I'm not sure I want scientists in politics, and I know I don't want politicians in science.  For a good example of how politicians and science don't mix, look at the awfulness that came out of Al Gore becoming the spokesman for climate change.  Imagine if Stephen Hawking (Maybe not Hawking, but a similar well-known and well-respected scientist) had taken that role instead.  It's become a political issue, when it needs to be a scientific issue.

When I think of scientists who've gotten involved in politics, I think of mercenary experts and fringe theorists, both considered Bad Things.  Science should have people lobbying for it, and people advising politicians, but scientists themselves have more important things to do.