

Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists? - charbonnelb
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/why-dont-americans-elect-scientists/

======
tokenadult
From the opinion piece kindly submitted here, which is by mathematician and
popular author on mathematics John Allen Paulos:

"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."

Indeed, it is hard to remember anymore that Singapore was a very, very poor
country when it achieved independence (after being expelled from the
Federation of Malaysia in 1965). Singapore was settled earliest by ethnic
groups similar to those in current Malaysia, with a big influx of wretchedly
poor agricultural laborers for plantation labor during the British colonial
period. It was not expected in the pre-independence period (which extended
into my lifetime) that Singapore would ever be prosperous. (You can watch a
videotape of the movie Saint Jack, which was filmed in Singapore, for a
reminder of the poverty in Singapore as recently as in the early 1970s.)

But the early leadership of independent Singapore strongly emphasized
effective generally available primary education (without at first even making
school attendance compulsory) and studied the best international examples of
sound textbooks and effective teaching practice.

<http://www.merga.net.au/documents/RP182006.pdf>

People from Singapore are so ethnically diverse that Singapore has four
official languages from four different language families. School pupils in my
generation (born in the late 1950s) grew up in a country that was extremely
poor (it's hard to remember that about Singapore, but until the 1970s
Singapore was definitely part of the Third World) and were educated in a
foreign language (the language of schooling in Singapore has long been
English, but the home languages of most Singaporeans are south Chinese
languages like my wife's native Hokkien or Austronesian languages like Malay
or Indian languages like Tamil) and yet received very thorough instruction in
mathematics.

Today Singapore is prosperous, and one set of projections suggests it is on
track to be the richest country in the world on a per-capita basis by 2050.

[http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/15/singapore...](http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/15/singapore-
worlds-richest-country-by-2050/)

Chapter 1: "International Student Achievement in Mathematics" from the TIMSS
2007 study of mathematics achievement in many different countries includes, in
Exhibit 1.1 (pages 34 and 35)

<http://pirls.bc.edu/timss2007/PDF/T07_M_IR_Chapter1.pdf>

a chart of mathematics achievement levels in various countries. Although the
United States is above the international average score among the countries
surveyed, as we would expect from the level of economic development in the
United States, the United States is well below the top country listed, which
is Singapore. An average United States student is at the bottom quartile level
for Singapore, or from another point of view, a top quartile student in the
United States is only at the level of an average student in Singapore. I've
been curious about mathematics education in Singapore ever since I heard of
these results from an earlier TIMSS sample in the 1990s.

So regardless of whom we elect in the United States, why can't we be curious
about what we can learn from other countries that have handled diverse
language backgrounds of elementary pupils better than the United States has,
and have enjoyed sustained, rapid economic growth for longer than the United
States has?

ESPECIALLY NOTE THIS PART OF THE POST ABOUT MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION AND
DEMOCRACY

Just yesterday, I learned from another Hacker News participant, one who grew
up in one country and now lives and works in another, about the latest
revision of the article "Word Problems in Russia and America"

[http://www.de.ufpe.br/~toom/travel/sweden05/WP-SWEDEN-
NEW.pd...](http://www.de.ufpe.br/~toom/travel/sweden05/WP-SWEDEN-NEW.pdf)

by Andrei Toom, a Russian mathematician who has lived in the United States and
now teaches in Brazil. The document is long (98 pages) but well worth reading.
Toom's conclusion is very striking.

"34. Conclusion

"Having read this article, somebody may think that I connect poor education
with democracy. I do not. History connects them sometimes, at random as it
seems. What I do think is that democracy has many aspects and free elections
of political leaders is just one of them. Quality of education is not
determined by quality of political structure and can deviate from it for
better or worse. Let me illustrate this idea by two examples. There are 2354
problems in [Berez], a few dozens of which contain Soviet political
propaganda.

"This is an example:

"Problem 59 How many years passed from the French burgeois revolution till the
Great October socialist revolution if the former took place in 1789? (p. 17).
[P: revolution]

"Here the political bias is evident, but from the mathematical point of view
the problem is fair: the correct answer is arguably 1917 − 1789 = 128 . Soviet
leaders wanted such problems to indoctrinate Soviet ideology along with
teaching mathematics, but only half of their wishes came true: students
learned mathematics, but got rid of the Soviet rule. Some rushed to the West
taking jobs from those who were raised on problems like this:

"Problem 60 A national magazine surveyed teenagers to determine the number of
hours of TV they watched each day. How many hours do you think the magazine
reported? [St.1], p. 79. [P: TV]

"It may seem very human to use this problem in class: every student will be
able to say something and nobody will be completely wrong, so nobody will be
frustrated. But when these kids grow up, they will regret the years wasted on
such shallow 'problems'."

To sum up, there isn't any necessary relationship between numeracy (which
many, many people in Taiwan have because of very effective primary mathematics
education there) and democracy and freedom (which the people of Taiwan won
largely through peaceful protest movements even though their own former
dictatorial government told them that they were culturally unsuited for free
elections and a free press). I have followed the economic development and
political liberalization of Taiwan closely since the 1970s, having lived there
for six years of my life, and it is definitely empirically possible to have
politicians who have strong math skills and win elections and to have
genuinely free elections and deep protection of civil liberties. Why not the
best? Why not seek all of the best features we can learn about from other
countries for the country we live in?

AFTER THE LAST EDIT I STILL HAVE AVAILABLE:

Yes, I am speaking about both Singapore (the country mentioned in the
submitted article that opened the thread) and Taiwan. Singapore is a good
example of mathematics education, but a (relatively) bad example of democracy.
Taiwan is a good example of mathematics education, another example of a poor
country becoming prosperous by educating the masses, and also an ever
improving example of democracy in a cultural context with a long history of
tyranny. To sum up, improving mathematics education in the United States is a
good idea, and several countries can provide good examples to the United
States of how to do that. To the point of the submitted article, it would be
good for voting behavior and legislation in the United States if the broader
masses of the citizenry had better numeracy.

One other top-level comment made a very important point, the point I was
thinking of making when I first read the title of the submitted article before
reading its content.

 _"The largest punishment for those who are not interested in politics, is
that they'll be governed by those who are."

Maybe the best solution would be to teach politics to scientists, and not the
other way around?_

One of my motivations for participating on Hacker News, where most
participants are trained in technical subjects, rather than the foreign
language (Chinese) undergraduate degree and law degree that I have, is that I
think it is important for technically trained people to understand democratic
politics and the representative legislative process better than most do. I try
to do my part as a mathematics educator (my current occupation) to show
Americans an alternative model of mathematics instruction, and I am gratified
to have clients of all ethnicities from multiple countries who know that it is
possible to do better in mathematics education than is done in America's
public school system. I try to do my part here on HN to remind all our friends
that politics is the art of compromise, and policy trade-offs have to be
carefully considered and presented to stakeholders with persuasion rather than
only with statements about what is correct. I enjoy the intellectual exchange
here precisely because my years of living abroad and studying public policy
sometimes give me something different from the consensus view to say here, and
I correspondingly learn from people here who have a perspective besides that
which I have gained from formal education and work experience. Let the
scientists enter politics if they will, but let them do so with their eyes
open.

~~~
ta12121
I have great sympathy for the position proposed in the article, with one major
fear: those trained in science typically traffic in ideas that are either
right (true) or wrong (false). I fear that this would dispose them toward
authoritarianism, which is in fact the first word that comes to mind when I
hear about Singapore. How does this compare to your personal experience?

~~~
wheels
You're probably not a scientist. Mathematics _mostly_ traffics in things which
are right or wrong; science rarely does. That's one of the criticisms that the
peanut gallery often lobs at it: that it's just based on _theories_.

When ideas are actually being trafficked -- that is when they're new and
struggling for breathing room, they're rarely clearly right or wrong.
Consensus forms over a fairly long amount of time. With luck, and a lot of
verification, over the course of a decade or three theories elide to the canon
of science's best understanding of a given problem space. There we might
broadly refer to theories as "true", but that's just everyday conversational
shorthand, not the language of science.

The problem in the intersection with pop culture is that it's generally only
well after those couple of decades of a theory working its way into the canon
of scientific understanding that it begins working its way through pop
culture. This is the critical point where there's a lot of naysaying from the
general public and a lot of rolled eyes from scientists. It's at this point
that science _transforms_ into politics: each side hardens their positions,
begins stating them in absolutist terms and tries to win the other side over,
usually based on an appeal to authority.

Science itself is, in fact, a slow and reasonably democratic process. It is at
times dogmatic, but far less than, say, American politics.

~~~
Sniffnoy
Going by anecdotal evidence[0], there does seem to be some of the tendency
ta12121 worries about among _engineers_ , though.

[0]See e.g. <http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Engineers_and_woo>

~~~
photon137
Not really. Engineers venture out into the grey even more than scientists do -
they solve problems of interest to humans - their job _requires_ them to be
grounded in reality and be sensitive to human needs and constraints (well, at
least the _good_ ones are).

I often think that while a purely technical background and education might be
really powerful and enable one to analyze and predict _well-behaved_ things
better than others - which could lead to better decisions, it is extremely
important to be receptive to the "inexplicable-until-experienced" stuff like
music or business or relationships - to know that there are things that
_can't_ be controlled and shouldn't be controlled - that some things should
evolve of their own accord - the chaotically evolved imperfect being more
beautiful than the mathematically-designed perfect. (Edit: a combination of
both works quite well, in my experience - some of the best businessmen,
economic and political advisers I know of have engineering backgrounds - and
no, they aren't unreasonably conservative or dogmatic).

In my opinion, the fear of "what will happen if I let go?" can lead to
authoritarianism via technocracy (aside from the fact that anyone can get
drunk on power) - not one's profession.

~~~
creamyhorror
What's interesting is that the senior leaders of Singapore were often trained
in engineering, and some have attributed their technocratic and unpopulist
approaches to the engineering mindset. For them, it's all about making things
that work, but the secondary/knock-on effects sometimes don't get considered
or noticed until it's too late.

Funnily enough, in our media it was reported that of late, students receiving
top-level government scholarships to the US/UK/elsewhere hardly ever choose
engineering any more, but study economics instead (probably influenced by the
dominance of the financial industry). So the next generation of Singapore
leaders may very well be dominated by economics trainees - I wonder what sort
of government we'll get, then? Certainly a more diverse one, but also one
lacking in engineers and scientists.

------
lmkg
At least part of the problem is structural. One contributing factor could be
that the US uses direct regional elections, instead of a parliamentary system.

In a parliamentary system, the people vote on a party, rather than a person,
and the party decides the individuals who get elected. There's less of an
emphasis on individual charisma, and charismatic leaders only need appear at
the top of the ticket. A party with sufficient representation is free to fill
out the bottom of its ticket with "specialists" whose expertise is valuable,
but who wouldn't win a general election on their own.

Meanwhile in the states, every ticket is one member deep so there are no
specialists, only generalists. While they can be advisors, the only official
positions they can take are cabinet members (where we do see lots of
scientific degrees). Further, the lack of scientists in low-ranking elected
positions (like House of Representatives) means that there's less of a
science+politics talent pool to draw from for the high-ranked positions
(Executive branch).

~~~
jpwagner
The US is supposed to be a representative republic. I suppose this is mostly
theoretical, but we shouldn't be voting for Pepsi vs Coke, we should be voting
for an individual to serve in our region as representative.

In direct response to the original post, Congress was not designed to invent a
nation over and over again, it was designed to be a representation of regions.
So scientists should represent regions where science is a major industry.

~~~
nooneelse
That pushes the issue back into the older question, given a nation's worth of
people, what type of dividing lines best group them into sub-populations for
the purpose of representation. That is, why lines in space vs lines in income,
or total wealth, or hair color, or profession? And what defense of lines in
space could possibly defend such complex (gerrymandered) ones?

------
uuilly
Science can only describe the physical world, it can't tell you what to do
about it. The Nazis had plenty of highly placed scientists. Woodrow Wilson did
too and they were in favor of eugenics.

The deification of science is a life raft post adolescents cling to as they
try to swim away from the inherent corruption of mankind. Scientists are no
less afflicted with selfishness, vanity or pettiness than people in any other
industry. Striving toward scientific objectivity is a wonderful pursuit. So is
striving toward the ideal of many religions. But practicing a religion does
not make you god and practicing science does not make you science.

~~~
quanticle
That said, the old adage still holds: "You are entitled to hold your own
opinions, but not to hold your own facts." That is something which is clearly
not true in US politics. There are politicians in the US who profess publicly
that the Earth is not warming, that the universe is only 6000 years old, and
animals were designed by a divine creator.

This has obvious public policy implications. It's hard to discuss possible
adaptations or remedies for global warming when one side refuses to
acknowledge that the phenomenon even exists. It's hard to talk about
endangered species when one side thinks, "It's God's responsibility." It's
hard to talk about the impact of tax changes when neither side has a coherent
view of basic economics.

It's true that scientists are no less afflicted by selfishness, vanity, or
pettiness than people in any other industry. However, unlike people in other
industries (especially law and politics), scientists and engineers have to
deal with physical reality. They cannot make their problems go away through
fancy rhetoric or canny argumentation. That reminder of physical reality
beyond the niceties of law and legislation is one that's sorely lacking in our
government today.

~~~
001sky
The reason is people are not so naive. In 20th C., affiliating your position
with [Science] has often just been short hand for [Trust Me]. It has been a
way to dress up mutton as lamb. Only a certain kind of person argues: I know
the all the facts. I am 100% right. They are usually (1) people who do _not_
know what they are talking about; or (2) people who [bracket] their scope of
knowledge to the subset of things that [conform to their
education/training/expertise], but then extrapolate further. And, everybody
knows, politics covers a broader scope of ambition and emotion. Certainly,
broader than what is taught [in XYZ school]. It covers hopes and dreams [mlk,
ghandi]. As well as other more base instincts [20th century wars, etc]. So,
there is no [expertise] in politics that is an academic credential. And to
substitute an [academic] [science] credential and call it an [expertise] in
politics is dressing up [mutton] and calling it [Lamb]. Its just short hand
for [Trust Me]. And the reason people do not buy that? The reason is that
people are not so naive.

------
hcarvalhoalves
Because elections are a poor way to elect competent people, overall?

The best democratic system in the world won't help anything if the population
is not educated or interested enough to make an informed decision. Democracy
itself is distorted because it doesn't thrive for optimal solutions, instead,
it thrives to _please_ the people.

The people who get elected are detached from the population to begin with.
Being a "politician" is a full-time job. That's absurd. Policies are
responsibility of each individual citizen.

~~~
wwweston
> Being a "politician" is a full-time job. That's absurd.

Really? Representing thousands (if not hundreds of thousands or millions) of
people and sorting/synthesizing policy suggestions to try and come up with
something that will (a) work in constituent interests (b) will fly with some
majority well enough to make it happen -- it's somehow "absurd" that this
might conceivably take up 40+ hours a week?

A lack of information and disengagement on the part of most citizens is a
problem, but it's not one that stems from having full-time offices or
representative democracy itself.

> Democracy itself is distorted because it doesn't thrive for optimal
> solutions, instead, it thrives to please the people.

Apparently a displeased people would be more optimal?

~~~
hcarvalhoalves
> Apparently a displeased people would be more optimal?

Let me make an analogy:

Democracy is like presenting hamburger and healthy food to kids every 4 years
and asking them to chose one; then later complaining they're obese.

------
nostromo
I think a more interesting question is: why do Americans elect Lawyers? It's
the most common profession in Congress (not including the self-referential
"politics" answer
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_111th_United_Sta...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_111th_United_States_Congress#Occupational_background)).
Both presidential candidates are Harvard Law students as well.

I understand why Lawyers would want to become Lawmakers. I don't understand
however such an unpopular field manages to get elected so often.

My new theory is that the House Representatives (not the Senate or Executive
Branch) should be selected not by election but by random lottery, similar to
jury duty. It would be much more representative of the populous than what we
have today.

~~~
ionforce
Do you really want random, uneducated people wielding that much power? People
who idolize celebrities?

~~~
cobrausn
It's this kind of attitude that makes geeks / scientists generally _disliked_
by the 'celebrity-idolizing' masses. My guess is the average person who would
meet the qualifications to represent in the house (i.e., read, write, good
standing with the law, etc) is probably more intelligent than you think, and a
basic competency test could weed out those who aren't.

------
justin
If you are going in for heart surgery, you probably want a team of surgeons
and anaesthesiologists to perform your operation. You wouldn't want a team of
lawyers to do it -- you would die.

It boggles the mind that we don't hold the same standards for decision making
in our government: environmental policy is decided by a team of lawyers,
military spending is decided by lawyers, security policy is decided by
lawyers.

Certainly good rhetoric and being able to engender passion in the populace has
it's place, but I'm hard pressed to believe that 99% of the elected leadership
positions in government should be occupied by people with primarily those
skill sets.

~~~
Zakharov
The people who acquire power tend to be those skilled at acquiring power.

To be more accurate, those who acquire power tend to be those who are good at
acquiring power under the system for doing so. Existing political systems
favor the most charismatic politicians. What system would encourage the most
able technocrats, instead of the most ruthless? This isn't a rhetorical
question.

~~~
forensic
Meritocracy. The new word is "Meritocracy" and it will be the successor to
Democracy.

~~~
jeffdavis
Wasn't there an episode of The Simpsons about this?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Saved_Lisas_Brain>

~~~
forensic
The Simpsons is not intellectually notable

------
vibrunazo
Are there scientists to vote for in the US? I would love to vote for one, but
they're are no scientist candidates in my country. And virtually every
academic I know, openly hates politics and wants to stay away from it.

"The largest punishment for those who are not interested in politics, is that
they'll be governed by those who are."

Maybe the best solution would be to teach politics to scientists, and not the
other way around?

~~~
wiggins37
I was also wondering how many scientists run for political office. I have
never heard of one (although maybe they don't advertise it loudly due to fear
of a bias). I think a lot of it has to do with the amount of time and effort
that goes into specialized knowledge. As a healthcare worker (not a
scientist), politics is definitely looming over me, although on a daily basis
I rarely if ever think about it. I don't think I could ever pursue both.

------
T_S_
Politics is theater. At least under our current setup and probably most
others.

Ever notice how little policy is actually discussed even when a supposed
policy wonk (e.g. Clinton, Ryan) are giving the speech?

------
BjoernKW
Quite simply because they don't run for office. Angela Merkel is quite an
exception in that respect. Usually, in Germany it's quite the same as in the
US: Most high-profile politicians are lawyers or - a German peculiarity -
former teachers.

------
7rurl
Americans don't elect scientists, because scientists don't run for office.
Scientists don't run for office because they want to be scientists rather than
politicians. Maybe the problem is that American politics requires elected
officials to spend 100% of their time being politicians?

------
Dirlewanger
Any level-headed scientist knows the awful stigma American politics has and
the seedy underbelly one must traverse to come even close to getting
anywhere...and as such, they avoid it.

------
csmatt
There's a word for this: "technocracy".

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy>

I believe it comes down to whether or not scientists/engineers/etc would
actually like to hold office. Truly passionate people want and need to be on
the ground. Becoming a leader removes one from the processes that have a
direct impact.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Most scientists/engineers/etc I know (including myself) would love to _hold_
office, but have little interest in the life-consuming activity of _running
for_ office.

------
jeffreybaird
Many scientists are atheists or at the very least not strictly religious. It
seems that you currently have to believe in God to be elected. Is this keeping
many of them from even running?

~~~
adrr
Some states forbid Atheists from holding public office. Looking at current
supreme court decisions where they differ everything back to state, these laws
may stand if challenged. Only thing that has precedent is forcing religious
tests, you can't force people take an oath as requirement for the spot.

~~~
vectorbunny
I found this hard to believe, but:

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:

    
    
        No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.
    

Maryland, Article 37:

    
    
        That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.
    

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:

    
    
        No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.
    

North Carolina Article 6, Section 8:

    
    
             The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
    
        First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.
    

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:

    
    
        No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.
    

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:

    
    
        No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
    
    
    

from:
[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/12/15/whic...](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/12/15/which-
states-ban-atheists-from-holding-public-office/)

~~~
sukuriant
Just ... wow. Whatever your religious stance, the United States rests on a
continent that was colonized with flight from religious persecution as one of
its FOUNDING reasons. I'm surprised that such requirements are listed, period.
It seems like they danced around
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_religious_test_clause> with their wording by
simply declaring an entire binding philosophy of people [a]theist and
[a]gnostic (where the letter in []'s is optional). Wow.

~~~
logn
It makes some sense. America was founded on the belief that we (or at that
time at least white, male property owners) were endowed by our Creator with
certain inalienable rights. It was only by appealing to a greater power that
we could essentially describe human rights and the need for limited government
and individual liberty.

------
patdennis
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_D._Holt>

~~~
prezjordan
Are you from 12th district as well? Glad someone pointed this out. I have a
lot of pride that this man is a representative - literally a rocket scientist.

~~~
brown9-2
He came to speak to my High School civics class in his first campaign for the
House - very proud to say he represents my district.

------
LetBinding
In a political climate where a major state's dominant political party's
platform wants to ban critical thinking skills because they "challenge a
student's fixed beliefs" and "undermine parental authority", it is unthinkable
that scientists could be in government.

<http://tinyurl.com/6rqnygr> [DailyTech]

Typically, a critical mass of the populace equates science as being anti-God,
and critical thinking as being conspiratorial.

<http://tinyurl.com/c2tjf8h> [ScientificAmerican]

At the most, a scientist could get elected to a house seat from a district
with lots of hi-tech firms or universities. He / she would have no chance of
winning a statewide or countrywide political race.

------
hmgrwntxn
I don't want to step on too many toes, but I have to make mention of the error
in the particular arrogance among the scientific community that their work
qualifies them to reform other industries and facets of the human existence.
Obviously the work of scientists and engineers is vital, and worthy of credit
and praise, but I would not trust even the smartest scientists and engineers I
know to handle the foreign policy of a nation, for example. Or tell me how to
live my life, ethically or morally. I'm saying this from the perspective of an
engineer, to my credit--I'm well aware of the talent and brilliance in the
community. I just think it's dangerous to worship the altar of science to
solve all of our problems.

~~~
proland
"Or tell me how to live my life, ethically or morally"

Is this really the duty of politicians though? Certainly there's been a lot of
discourse about this in the current landscape, especially from those
attempting to impart their personal ethics and morals on the political
landscape, but this shouldn't be the duty of the government, but the duty of
individuals (chiefly parents) as well as that of a society as a whole.
Government shouldn't have any business in what is ethical or moral but in what
is legal (which is sometimes, but not always a reflection of ethics and
morals).

~~~
hmgrwntxn
Sure, I agree, I wasn't trying to say that it's the politician's job...that
line was meant to represent the ethical sphere of a human's existence, another
example of a facet in which I don't think a scientist _necessarily_ should be
trusted to lead, at least not solely based on their occupation/skill set
related to their scientific work. That's all I meant.

------
tangledweb
The simple reality is scientists don't say things people like.

If you ask a scientist what you should do about your medical condition, they
say unhappy, unreasoning things like "the best data we have at the moment says
you should do X and it has a 63% chance of showing some improvement but you
need to watch for side effects A, B, C, and D"

If you ask a homeopath or other snake oil salesman what you should do about
your medical condition, they say happy, reassuring things like "You should do
Y. I'm sure it will help and it has no side effects".

Scientists suck at selling things including themselves, and politics is all
about selling yourself.

------
GavinB
The biggest barrier to mounting a credible election campaign is getting
funding. Scientists are good at getting funding when it comes to writing grant
applications, but raising real money in most elections means spending a couple
hours every night of the campaign calling people and begging for money.

They don't talk about this and you don't see it on TV, but that's actually the
biggest challenge most new candidates face. Policy statements, talking to
voters, and giving speeches is a pretty minor part of it.

Most scientists just aren't going to be successful in that environment.

~~~
HarryHirsch
> Most scientists just aren't going to be successful in that environment.

That's why university presidents are paid small fortunes.

------
randomafrican
Do scientists want to be elected ?

~~~
egsmith
I was thinking the same thing. They're rarely elected because they're rarely
on the ballot.

~~~
ajuc
They say the same about woman.

------
jeffdavis
"A more politically sensitive approach to problems and issues, on the other
hand, often leads to positions that simply don’t jibe with the facts, no
matter how delicately phrased. Examples as diverse as stem cell research and
the economic stimulus abound."

It bothers me that the author states the existence of examples, without
actually telling us what the example is.

Reading between the lines, it seems like the author is implying that some
(unstated) policy positions related to stem cells and the economic stimulus
are refuted by scientific facts.

Although science might inform people on either issue, or cause people to
change their minds, I don't see how science or logic could make strong
conclusions in either case. That the author implies that science can answer
these questions is a big part of the reason that people are skeptical of
scientists in government.

EDIT: I suppose questions about economics could, in theory, be answered in a
compelling way by science. But in reality, the economy is so complex that I
just don't regard an economic opinion by an economist as anything more than an
informed opinion. Interesting, but it's not like it's a repeatable experiment
that anyone can verify.

------
larrys
"For complex historical reasons, Americans have long privately dismissed
scientists and mathematicians as impractical and elitist, even while publicly
paying lip service to them."

It's not so much that they dismiss scientists and mathematicians as much as
those people don't connect and talk a good game like people from other
backgrounds can. Laywers in particular who can be great orators. That "game"
is the thing that gets you elected. A great example of the "it" factor that
get's you elected is what Obama has, what Clinton displayed last night in his
speech at the DNC, and obviously what Kennedy had that allowed him to win the
televised debate but lose the radio debate to Nixon in the 60's. (I shouldn't
say "win" "lose" what I really mean is the perception of people at the time
apparently). Oh and Reagan obviously. Carter had headed a nuclear sub but had
a folksy manner which seemed to work for him.

That connection and charisma is really the important thing that gets you
elected in this country.

------
evo_9
Scientists are driven by truth - politicians are not.

~~~
masterzora
That's a big overgeneralisation. Scientists can often be seeking to further
their own agenda and politicians can often be trying to legitimately improve
things. At the end of the day most examples of both are really driven by some
form of furthering their career. Scientists usually need funding which can be
difficult to come across if you're doing the "wrong" things. Politicians
usually need votes and campaign contributions which can be difficult to come
across if you're doing the "wrong" things.

That said, at the end of the day scientists win when they can make
statistically viable predictions and politicians win when people like what
they've done so it's not as if they're exactly the same. But the engineer-type
tendency to reduce this to your simple one-liner hurts far more than it helps.

------
jonxu
I posit that truly great scientists cannot make great politicians (at least in
liberal democracies).

The primary motivation of a great scientist is to pursue truth, typically in
what is observable or can be proven by experimentation (there are exceptions).
The primary motivation of a great politician is to convince other human beings
to affect change or keep them in office. This usually involves obfuscating
truths and repainting what is observable to appeal to others.

This puts core motivations and corresponding skill-sets between a great
scientist and great politician at fundamental odds with each other.

------
rabidsnail
We did elect at least one (a five-term congressman, representing Princeton,
NJ): <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_D._Holt,_Jr>.

------
Fando
People in power should be exceptionally developed in all core fields:
sciences, mathematics, technology, medicine, law, history, language,
psychology and philosophy. Only then will they wield enough knowledge to be
able to make decisions with good reason. I agree with the article, there needs
to be a balance of knowledge among those in power which does not exist now.
This will allow for better, faster progress.

------
donretag
Related article and discussion (Eight Out Of China’s Top Nine Government
Officials Are Scientists): <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2556590>

A scientist's/engineer's life is one of constant learning. They simply cannot
take time off to run a campaign/take office for a few years.

------
duck
Germany did: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel>

------
newgrad
"...scientifically literate government leaders who push for evidence-based
policies and demonstrate a scientific outlook are needed more than glib
panderers with attitude."

In my subjective experience, scientifically literate leaders usually have way
better attitude than ones who are not that literate.

------
bane
Because by and large, scientists tend not to run for office.

As an engineer I am almost bored to tears when I think about running for
political office and what the campaign and the job entails...it's likely that
scientists just have more interesting things they can spend their time on.

------
mmuro
Neil deGrasse Tyson was asked this very same question and he basically said:
scientists are not interested in politics. They are interested in their field
because they spend years going to school to learn and want to do research.

Politics is about laws, not science.

------
javajosh
The best part about science that could be used by politics is _empiricism_.
There is so much talk of right and wrong, as if the policies of the next guy
are going to be written in stone forever. Our nation is a human construct, the
constitution a written document, amendable, changeable. A good scientist would
look at the problems facing this nation and say, "Well, let's see what this
policy does."

We try hard to make good policy, but the universe is complicated, people are
finicky, and policies can fail. We need a political environment that
encourages this kind of empiricism, and rejects the absolutist assumptions
that seem to underly all political debate.

------
ap22213
Because our laws have been so overly complicated that we have come to believe
that we need lawyers to write them.

------
miles
Scientists are too smart to get into politics.

------
001sky
Why don't _Americans_ elect scientists? Examing Data on historical samples,
may be instructive.[1] Some of the mor salient points to note, after reviewing
the sample data:

(1) A 'Science' criterion is Neither necessary nor sufficient;

(2) Political geography is not most likely a relevant issue.

Indeed were it so, the relative newness of 'Science' would imply there were no
good leaders among the Ancients -- clearly an error.

(3) Other examples: Presidents w/ Engineering Degrees. Ulysses S. Grant
(1869); Dwight D. Eisenhower (953); Jimmy Carter (1976).

So, data and logic imply we start from a flawed premise. Science of course,
would not _disqualify you_ , provided you had the political skills. But the
correlation is not assured one way or the other. To the extent its relevant,
it may not be explanatory.

______________

[1] Reference points might include, eg: _Pericles, Leonidas (that guy from
sparta), Alexander (the great), Cicero, Caeser (Julius), Ausgustus, Elizabeth
I, Napolean, Trafalgar, Lincoln, FDR, Churchill, Reagan_

------
api
"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."

<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/gibson.html>

------
ktizo
I think there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for all of this.

What I suspect is going on is that if Americans elected scientists, then
hurricanes and earthquakes would increase dramatically, partly because the
scientists would use the military to cause them on purpose to justify their
budgets, and also because it would make god mad as many scientists are godless
communists, and everybody knows that god hates communism.

So it is a completely sane and rational form of self-preservation against
activist geologists and a possibly capricious deity, and as such I would ask
what the New York Times thinks it is doing by publishing an article that could
possibly immanentise the eschaton before we have even had a chance to
straighten out the economy.

[edit] To retain the utmost standards of fairness and academic rigour, the
research for this post was comprised exclusively of the stated opinions of
elected officials, and a selection of comments posted to youtube videos about
penguins.

------
rogerchucker
As said elsewhere on this thread, scientists usually make terrible politicians
which is an essential skill in a thriving democracy (and Singapore ain't one).

~~~
billswift
The fact that Singapore isn't all that democratic from an American perspective
might have a good bit to do about why it's thriving otherwise. Go read
Graham's _Case Against the Democratic State_ and Hoppe's _Democracy: The God
that Failed_ for more (note that Hoppe's book apparently started life as a
collection of essays, it is really, really repetitive, even though it's also
short).

------
kylemaxwell
Because evolution. (Seriously.)

~~~
cobrausn
Not all scientists are evolutionary biologists.

