
Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists? - mjfern
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/why-dont-americans-elect-scientists/?hp&gwh=5A17EC6C64B96B318FFDF420BAB9B87D
======
prewett
Why don't Americans elect scientists? Because current American culture is
anti-intellectual. I can't really back this up concretely, but as an American,
it's hard to find anything intellectual around. A long time ago, people went
to hear lectures on the weekends, and the Lincoln-Douglas debates were well
attended. Now, TV "news" is a joke, and even NPR is becoming a bit entertainy.
I get the feeling that few Americans want to think.

~~~
kolinko
Anti-intellectuality aside. Understanding science is important, but a good
scientist ≠ good manager. A scientist is usually someone with narrow, but deep
knowledge/experience, as a politician I want someone with a broader set of
experiences & knowledge.

I mean, MSc president - sure. PhD president - probably no, thank you :)

~~~
Erunno
There's also the fallacy that scientists will only make pure objective
decisions but scientists are in the end only humans and have their own
believes, failings and political agendas. The whole system of peer reviewing
and the acknowledgement that every scientific theory can be falsified is a
testament to this realization. Unfortunately I have the impression that in
politics too often individual experts are only heard and thus the whole system
of checks and balances in science is circumvented and particular scientific
opinions might get more weight than justified.

Still, I believe that the scientific methodology (not necessarily individual
scientists) is still our best hope to actually achieve improvements as shown
by our rapidly expanding knowledge since it was more formally defined. It just
has to be tempered with clear political goals.

~~~
UnFleshedOne
Not sure if that's the falsifiability you meant, but a scientific theory
_must_ be falsifiable by definition. As in -- there must be a way to setup an
experiment with a possible outcome that would prove this theory to be wrong.
It is impossible to disprove a theory that "invisible pink unicorns exist" --
because for every suggested experiment you can just say "well, they are
invisible, so we can't see them". Of course falsifiability is not the worst
problem with this particular theory (how can something be pink and invisible
bothers me more for example), but it is a necessary condition any scientific
theory must meet.

~~~
Erunno
I brought up falsifiability casually because it is an important corner stone
for my understanding of the scientific methodology and keeps scientists from
proclaiming dogmas (or at least it should). It is also an acknowledgement that
our current theories mostly reflect our current understanding and may be prone
to change in the feature.

------
patio11
Who is a scientist? If you scope this to PhDs who have done serious research
in academia, you pretty much just said "no ex-university career before the age
of 40." That is going to make it very hard to develop the networks you'll need
to advance up the ranks of either party. You'll also likely require
substantial external support for initial campaigns because relative to the
lawyers, doctors, businessmen, undertakers, and pilots in your cohort you are,
ahem, kinda poor. This would be easier if you had married well, and indeed
having the right kind of spouse is a huge asset to your political career, but
the academic lifestyle is notorious for inducing prolonged singleness.

For a broader definition of scientist which e.g. includes engineers or
doctors, Americans elect them quite regularly.

~~~
gcp
_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....This showing is sparse even with the
inclusion of the doctors, but it shouldn’t be too surprising._

The article clearly considers engineers and doctors to be scientists. As it
should - they are all well-versed in the scientific method by education and
should know how to apply it.

~~~
Maro
My wife is a medical doctor doing a Phd right now. By her own admission,
doctors are _not_ well-versed in the scientific method _by education_. The
others in her lab are all biologists, and she spent the first year playing
catch-up in terms of being able to do science, and says she still feels like
she'll always be behind compared to the biologists in the lab who got a
regular scientist training in their 5 years at the University. She's certainly
being pessimistic though, her lab is headed by a medical doctor...

Anyways, my point is, doctors are not trained to be scientists.

Disclaimer: This is Hungary. I have four doctors in my close family. I'm a
physicist.

~~~
gcp
Well-versed may be a very relative term. I've been exposed to physics,
engineering and computer science. The physicists had the scientific method
drilled in deep. The engineers a bit. The computer scientists had vaguely
heard about it. We still call them computer scientists. Your wife may suffer
from a similar "relative difference". (Coincidentally, I could repeat your
story with my wife, who's a computer scientist working for doctors who work
with biologists in a lab.)

Does a law degree or an MBA cover the "characterize, hypothesize, predict,
experiment" cycle?

~~~
Maro
One thing that comes up again and again is understanding significances, errors
and such. This stuff is second nature to a good (and honest) physicist coming
out of University, even before he becomes a "pro".

In my experience, to a doctor, even a good one, _at first_ it's just an
annoying thing they have to do to get published and they don't really
understand the significance of significances. (LOL.)

I would argue that this type of sensitivity to understanding data should be
important if you're running a country. You can't even say that there are
underlings for this, because this data is so important, and the possibility of
underlings skewing it for whatever reason so sizable, that I certainly would
want to have some understanding and feeling for the data before doing a press
conference about it or using it to guide my lawmaking.

~~~
gcp
You have my vote.

Lots of policy decisions are made based on statistics. Yet they are easy to
fool someone with if he or she does not understand them properly enough.

 _In my experience, to a doctor, even a good one, _at first_ it's just an
annoying thing they have to do to get published and they don't really
understand the significance of significances._

Slightly disappointing. I'd have expected doctors to have an understanding of
placebo effects, and the field of medicine is one where you regularly hear
(even outside medicine) about studies being discredited afterwards for
wrong/improper controls, positive results being unreproducible etc.

I don't remember the last time I heard a comp sci paper being withdrawn for
bad statistics. (They tend to have none, even when they should)

~~~
Maro
I'm not saying doctors doing research never learn this stuff, just that they
come out of University without this knowledge. (I certainly don't know enough
about medical research literature to make a statement like this.)

Curiously, at one biomed lab (can't remember if it's the wife's) they have a
dedicated person (shared by several labs) to do the statistics for the
presentations and the papers. Kind of weird if you ask me, you'd think
understanding whether your results are meaningful is not something you
calculate at the end!

------
stretchwithme
Its not who you elect that matters. Its how decentralized the system is and
how limited the power of the government is that matters.

When the amount of power is great and concentrated, those lusting after power
work very hard to get it. And they will do what they need to get it. And then
use the power to keep it.

But when the government is limited and very decentralized, its not going to
attract sociopaths as much.

In Switzerland, each member of a 7 person council takes a one-year turn
presiding.

There's a joke about it actually. A tourist is discussing this with a Swiss
man he bumped into.

After asking many other questions, the tourist finally asks "So who is
president this year?" The Swiss man replied "Oh, this year its me."

~~~
smokeyj
I have a theory that part of Europe's success was due to the fragmented nature
of States. Within a small area you have independent nations with their own
laws, currency, elections, etc. This represents less single points of failure
IMO.

I think the early U.S also had a similar model. State's had their own
currencies and regulations, with the right to over-rule federal regulations.
Now, the US is essentially one state, one currency, and a giant single point
of failure. Now the EU and the US are metastasizing in size/power and crushing
anything that poses a threat to their authority.

~~~
stretchwithme
Yes. And many of the most successful countries are tiny. And leaders
accountable. Singapore and Switzerland spring to mind. Singapore isn't even a
democracy, but it is very easy to leave, making it accountable, at least
economically.

Back when we all lived in tribes, if a leader failed, people simply left the
tribe. We need to be able to do virtually the same thing.

If we could remove our property from a city when corruption becomes more than
membership is worth. That would impose some discipline. And cities should be
able to leave.

And, predictably, Switzerland already has that. People can leave a canton to
join a neighboring one or start their own. And it rarely happens. The
possibility is a deterrent.

------
pranjalv123
I think the really big factor here is that scientists don't want to go into
politics! Maybe I'm painting the world with an overly broad brush here, but
politics and science approach the truth in exactly opposite ways.

I'm not going to say that politics is a game of lies, because it's not, but
politicians essentially invent the truth as they go along. It's similar in
some ways to law or the humanities, where the truth is very much a matter of
interpretation, there's a case to be made for each side, and no one is ever
objectively "wrong". Right and wrong are entirely a matter of personal
opinion.

On the other hand, science is, in the limit, entirely objective. A physical
theory can be objectively shown to be incorrect. Scientists can defend their
theories, but fundamentally have to accept it if their theory is disproved, or
else they become irrelevant. There was a great link earlier today on HN that
talked about how the smartest people are the ones who are most skeptical of
their own ideas. That's great in science, but if you don't believe yourself
totally in politics, no one else will.

This means that scientists, who presumably study under and work with other
scientists for decades, think in this scientific mindset. This makes them
totally unsuited for the world of politics (and of course, vice versa).
Politicians can't admit they were wrong, because that means that they'll
probably be wrong again, and no one will vote for someone who's wrong. Case in
point: Mitt Romney and universal healthcare.

I'll also make another point that a lot of people miss: Being a politician is
roughly as difficult as being a scientist. If we expect our best politicians
to get an advanced degree in something like business or law (things related to
the process of running a nation) or to spend a long time working in politics
or on social issues, why do we think that scientists with no such training
will make good politicians? We certainly don't expect most law school grads to
do much more than wash bottles in the lab.

~~~
eftpotrm
Why don't they want to enter politics though? If we drew up a hypothetical
list of attributes for a scientist, how many could cross over into politics?

Significant intellect and a desire to exercise that in significant work? Yes.

Deep interest in a field and a wish to explore that further? Yes. (In the
sense that many such people seem capable of maintaining multiple such
interests.)

Interest in complex work and ability to hold large datasets in mind? Yes.

Drive to rise above others and push for achievement? Yes.

The more I look, the more it seems that a major factor working against
scientist partiicpation in public debate generally and politics more
specifically is a strong pervading trend of anti-intellectuallism. In science
they can know that, by and large, if they back up their assertions with
rigorous testing and data, their viewpoint will at the very least be taken
seriously and very likely accepted. Whereas, by current trends at least, in
politics their assertion would be rubbished as elitist and talked down with an
incoherent anecdote.

Where, in that system, is the motivation for the genuinely capable and
informed to use their abilities for the public good?

~~~
larrydag
One of the most failed "experiments" of science and politics was Robert
McNamara as U.S. Secretary of Defense under JFK. He used a lot of scientific
methods to evaluate his political decisions with war and intervention. All of
his evaluations pointed out that the U.S. should intervene in Vietnam and look
how that turned out. In politics there are too many variables at play. Perhaps
politics is good for the "intellectual" but not for the scientist.

As an aside I think its a little bit dangerous to put intellectual and
scientist in the same category.

~~~
dhume
How many tests did he run? What confidence interval did he establish? What
factors did he control for and how?

~~~
larrydag
Good questions of which I do not know the specifics. McNamara's background was
with helping turn Ford around by using his statistical and analytical
expertise. Later he got involved using those same techniques with the Defense
Dept.

------
runningdogx
One aspect I've never thought about before is the selection of representatives
for parliament/legislature. In the U.S., they're pre-selected in primary
elections per party, but the national elections are single-winner per seat, so
the candidates are out pandering to the voters constantly. I don't know
percentages, but many other countries use multi-winner to select their
national multi-seat bodies, and my understanding is that those would-be
candidates aren't out campaigning, or at least not anywhere close to as
visible as they are in the U.S. or the U.K. where there are direct single-
winner elections for seats. As ideologically-driven as political parties are,
maybe the parties still tend to select more rational, scientific-minded
representatives when the would-be reps do not have a requirement to pander
directly to the population prior to the election.

India (from wikipedia) also appears to have direct election of its parliament.
India is fairly well known for its stifling bureaucracy. Is that coincidence,
or the start of a pattern?

Maybe it's also in part due to other countries (those which aren't degenerate
and corrupt enough that the government can fraudulently influence elections)
knowing they're not the world's largest superpower, and knowing they can't
afford to screw around as much.

I'd love to see the voting system changed to Range Voting (best overall?) or
Condorcet (best ordering-based voting system?). For its discrimination against
third parties, plurality voting is simply horrible, and IRV is nearly as
bad[1]. I'll note that I don't think a voting system change alone will fix the
American political system.

<http://rangevoting.org>, despite its nominal bias, is the best voting system
resource anywhere.

[1] for instance: <http://bolson.org/voting/irv/> IRV fails monotonicity,
which IMO is a huge deal. <http://rangevoting.org/Monotone.html>

~~~
whatusername
What do you see as the problem with IRV?

~~~
vidarh
It's still single seat. It has most of the same problems as straight plurality
single seat elections.

~~~
eftpotrm
Exactly; so many of the problems of under-representation are due to minority
groups having disparate, rather than concentrated, power bases and so failing
to achieve the threshold for election in any single seat in spite of having
more than enough supporters more widely.

STV (IRV with multi-member constituencies) or regional top-up lists can both
mitigate this. Neither is perfect, but they certainly help.

------
trb
What is the article arguing? Is there even an argument made? Why should
Americans elect more scientists? Will it lead to a higher quality of living or
more wealth or what?

It mentions China as a pro-scientists country, but why? It's riddled with
human rights violations, corruption and environmental pollution. While
American politicians decry climate change openly, China just seems to ignore
it.

Singapore is a city-state with 5mio citizens, and a high cost of living.
Finland also has 5mio citizens, is known for its wealth and the president
Tarja Halonen has a degree in law - in fact, the other politicians mentioned
on Finlands wikipedia page are missing a scientific degree as well.

I'm not buying it. Just staffing your government with scientists seems pretty
irrelevant for the success of a nation.

~~~
saulrh
China is socially repressive and an environmental catastrophe in progress, but
it's also one of the fastest-advancing nations in the world. Chinese citizens
were starving to death en masse as recently as the 70's. The fact that they've
pulled themselves out of that kind of industrial slump is amazing.

Wikipedia says that Singapore is the best trade center in Asia and one of the
best in the world. It also has the best credit and the best markets. Socially,
it's a bit repressive, but it is apparently doing very well economically.

Of course, without much data the argument is useless. It would be interesting
to see a pile of charts comparing scientists and engineers in politics to
economic success; with only three or four data points it's a a toss-up.

~~~
smsm42
One thing to consider here is that it may be fast advancing because it is
advancing from such a low positions. With more than a billion people, Chinese
economic potential is enormous, far exceeding any other country. The fact that
the have almost the same GDP as Japan while having more than 10 times more
population and huge natural resources can be explained only by broken
political and economic system. It is slowly moving out towards being somewhat
less broken, but one would be deeply mistaken taking this as a sign that one
should take it as an example to follow in its current state.

------
Duff
Americans don't elect scientists for a simple reason: scientists by their
nature lack the skills necessary to succeed as a popular politician.

Singapore isn't a democracy in the same sense as the US or Britain. China is a
not a democracy at all. So comparing the education levels of elected officials
isn't really an apples-to-apples comparison.

In the US, a person's charisma, ability to relate to and attract the attention
of voters, ability to build a political organization and ability to get things
done within the political system define your success as a politician.
Politicians start local, and build tight social networks as city councilmen,
mayors, state legislators, etc. They then use those networks to get into
Federal offices.

The great exception are candidates that skip the political process and reach
high office by spending prestige capital (ie. President/General US Grant) or
by spending lots of financial capital (ie. New York City Mayor Bloomberg).
Even in these cases, these folks are actually buying access to someone else's
political infrastructure.

None of this means that the US government does not have scientists working on
policy. Scientists do work for the government as political appointees (ie.
Secretary Chu of the US Department of Energy), as civil servants (ie.
employees of NOAA), as contractors to government (ie. the RAND Corporation),
or indirectly via unaffiliated think-tanks (ie. Federation of American
Scientists).

~~~
grecy
>In the US, a person's charisma, ability to relate to and attract the
attention of voters, ability to build a political organization .... define
your success as a politician.

Exactly. In the US, being a successful Politician is a popularity game, much
like Hollywood. Unfortunately, it has little to do with intelligence or if
that person will actually do anything good for anyone.

~~~
smsm42
Elections can not be anything but the "popularity game" by the very definition
- one that is most popular, i.e. appeals to the most people - wins the
election. The only way to avoid it is to abolish the elections and the
democracy. Now what constitutes the basis of this popularity - is it good
looks, smooth talk, shiny awards or ability to promise most appealing bribes
to the least moral populace - can differ. It would be nice if everybody would
be so educated as to use only the "right" criteria to choose the most
appealing candidate - the only wrinkle is nobody has any idea what those right
criteria are and what makes one a successful manager on the scale of millions
of people. We do know that many of the criteria in popular use - like spousal
fidelity 30 years ago, formal education degree, or ability to successfully
fake sincerity - are pretty bad predictors, but since we have very short
supply of good ones, people have to do with what we have.

------
feralchimp
Why _do_ Americans elect lawyers?

Laws and contracts are the operands of government. Money and a convincing
demeanor are the operators of elections.

Government is not really an experimental enterprise. Science is about
constructing interesting subsets of general-purpose reality to eliminate
variables, then testing other variables and seeing what happens. The history
of Legislative attempts to eliminate real-world variables is the history of
horrific side-effects: wars, market crashes, value destruction, and freedom-
trampling.

The chief complaint about current US reps isn't that they're not scientific,
but that they're not _aware of facts_ and that they're only aware of _some_
people. Scientists make no claims on being aware of people, and are deeply
aware of _some_ facts.

What we need in Government are intelligent yet _humble_ people who have
personally experienced some tragedy brought about by ill-conceived
legislation, tensioned by CFOs who in their personal lives give a shitload of
money to the poor.

Good luck on that talent search, America.

~~~
TheCapn
>Why _do_ Americans elect lawyers?

I think you're overthinking it. Lawyers make good politicians because they're
good debaters. A good debater and charismatic individual garners votes. So
long as you're not 110% bat-shit insane you'll win votes and the better you
are at making the opponent look bad the better on you.

Too much of American politics isn't so much about making realistic promises
and outlooks on the future that are obtainable as it is about extremism and
making the others look bad. To me it seems like that style of politics wins
because "it makes good TV".

~~~
feralchimp
Perhaps we're both overthinking it. _Lots_ of people are good debaters.

Lawyers are good debaters and more of them _want the job_.

------
Elrac
As Isaac Asimov complained years ago, “Anti-intellectualism has been a
constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life,
nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just
as good as your knowledge.'” There was a brief period, roughly coincident with
the Apollo space program, when rockets were cool and so were rocket
scientists. Since then, the public image of science and scientists in America
has been in decline.

I believe that religion plays a strong role here. Religious dogma is
threatened by scientific knowledge, and nowhere in the developed Western world
has the backlash been as strong as in the US, which also happens to be the
most religious of Western prosperous democracies. What's worse, the anti-
science campaign of the religious is smashingly successful: only 40% of
Americans give credence to biology's strongest and most useful theory, that of
Evolution. Among the countries sampled in this study:
[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolu...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html)
that's almost at rock bottom, undercut only by Turkey.

------
ekianjo
The article points this out at the end, but the reason is clear: because
scientists are supposed to be pragmatic, not ideology-driven. Therefore, in a
bi-party political world like the US, it would be difficult for them to fit
in, in terms of policies. Most of the policies (on either side) are not
evidence-based and actually have counter-productive effects in the long run
(Charles Murray explained this through several cases, for example, in his book
"Losing Ground").

However I am not sure about how relevant it is for the Singaporean examples to
have had "scientific background". If you do not work in the actual science
field and never used it, your background is worthless. If your everyday
occupation is to gather support to get elected, I question the validity of the
term "Scientist" in this case.

~~~
Radim
Nobody who has worked in academia would claim that scientists are somehow
"more pragmatic". Capricious, scheming, vindictive... just like the rest of
the population :)

Plus the fact that scientists are typically paid by tax payers', in a stable
governmental position (at least in Europe), and many never held any real job
in their whole lives, only adds to my doubts.

~~~
ekianjo
Not all scientists are government-employed. It may be a majority in some
countries, but I would not disregard the amount of scientists employed in the
private industries as well. They may not be involved in fundamental research,
rather "applied sciences", but they are scientists nonetheless. Anyone who
produces data through experimentation, analyses it, uses critical judgment and
appropriate tools to make evidence-based decisions is basically, in my eyes, a
"scientist", no matter the exact field of work.

Regarding your first point, the scientists who are not pragmatic will take
severe hits to their reputations down the road. Data and methodology is what
matters, not personal opinion.

~~~
bjnortier_hn
'Anyone who [...] uses critical judgment and appropriate tools to make
evidence-based decisions'

Except for the experimentation part, that could describe a lawyer. Which begs
the question,

Where does it go wrong?

Why do people from an evidence-based career become embroiled in the kind of
back[stabbing/scratching] politics that seems to be the norm today? And how
can it be fixed?

~~~
ekianjo
Experimentation is mandatory to conduct Science. You need to be able to form
theories or hypotheses from data or observation, and then conduct a controlled
experiment to validate your point. There can be no science without validation
and repeatability.

------
RandallBrown
Why would a scientist _want_ to be a politician? So they can spend their days
fighting over paperwork instead of solving problems they're passionate about?

The kind of people that want to be scientists would have no interest in
politics, beyond what it takes to get them funding.

~~~
Qz
My impression is that being a scientist involves a whole lot of fighting over
paperwork instead of solving problems (at least in America, when it's time to
apply for grants!).

~~~
apu
Depending on how much money you need to raise and how good you are at it,
fundraising can take from 10% - 80% of your time. Note that even at the high
end, you still get 20% of your time to work on scientific problems, which is
better than 0% -- what you get in most administrative/political jobs.

[All numbers very approximate.]

------
trustfundbaby
Here's what's missing from that article ... how many 'scientists' ran and lost
compared to 'non-scientists'?

I do think that Americans have this weird 'anti-nerd', culture where being
brainy without being rich (ever notice how having money makes it okay to be
nerdy in the States?) is something to be mocked or made fun of, but I also
think that the way the American political system is set up discourages
scientists/engineers from running.

Just take a look at Ron Paul (whom I disagree with on a lot btw) in some of
the debates, trying to tell Americans the hard, very obvious truths about
their country and getting roundly booed and you can understand why ... say ...
a software developer would never even want to go near the process.

------
yock
It isn't that Americans _don't_ elect a particular type of person, it's that
Americans _do_ elect a particular type of person. Americans by and large
voluntarily limit themselves to candidates showcased by the two prominent
marketing wings of American politics. This minimizes the amount of effort
required to make a decision, the hallmark of not just the American masses, but
humanity in general.

From there, you need only look at the type of person those two marketing
organizations are likely to champion. I'll refrain from stating what I think
they are but they decidedly are NOT celebrated academians.

------
TeMPOraL
While I'd definitely want to see more people with science/engineering
background managing countries, I keep wondering, whether this wouldn't be
solving a wrong problem. How much problems are there because western
politicians supposedly are morons who can't handle the complexities of this
world, and how much problems are caused by Upton Sinclair's _"It is difficult
to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not
understanding it"_? The latter case would probably affect scientist-
politicians as well.

------
MrKurtHaeusler
That is an easy one. Scientists are good at objective truth, facts, etc.

Most political decisions are however highly subjective, and based on values,
principles and opinions.

Scientists are great for advising politicians on things that are obviously and
provably correct or false, but once it gets beyond that, their biases tends to
get in the way.

Asking a scientist if NASA should get more or less funding is about as useful
as asking the chief bishop if the church should get state funding as a silly
example.

~~~
polymatter
And non-scientists take a more rational, balanced view that is more free from
bias?

I think bias is intrinsic to being human, and unavoidable (all we can do is
mitigate its damage). But someone who can admit they are wrong when faced with
evidence (aka a scientist) is probably better equipped than one who is adamant
that if they keep saying "no", eventually the universe will shut up and behave
(most politicians).

------
smsm42
If you take the view that government is needed to protect people's rights (you
know, "to secure these rights governments are instituted among men") as
opposed to providing people with solutions for their problems - then the
question becomes easy. Why should we? Who said scientists are better in
protecting one's rights than, say, cops or doctors or lawyers or plumbers? I
do not see anything in scientific training that makes scientists uniquely
suitable for that. I would prefer, naturally, to have smart people protecting
my rights, as this way they will be more effective in it, but one can be smart
without being a scientist.

Of course, the government would always have a lot of purely technical
questions where scientific training would allow one to decide them efficiently
- but these always would be secondary roles and rarely need to be elected, but
rather properly hired, which can be done by any decent manager. So why should
we elect more scientists?

~~~
gcp
_If you take the view that government is needed to protect people's rights
(you know, "to secure these rights governments are instituted among men") as
opposed to providing people with solutions for their problems - then the
question becomes easy._

False dichotomy.

 _Of course, the government would always have a lot of purely technical
questions where scientific training would allow one to decide them efficiently
- but these always would be secondary roles and rarely need to be elected, but
rather properly hired, which can be done by any decent manager._

If politicians were people who give difficult problems to a team of scientists
to allow them to come up with the best solutions, and then choose from the
equally good ones based on the underlying philosophical principles they stand
for, then no, we wouldn't need scientists in the government.

Failing that, I'll take the group who at least in principle deals with new
problems through a better method than guesswork or trial and error.

~~~
smsm42
How do you think science is made? Guesswork, trial and error are inherent
instruments of the science - it's called "hypothesis" and "experiment". Only
in the case of politics and economics an experiment may cost lives and wrong
hypothesis may lead to millions losing their livelihoods and their very lives.
I'd rather prefer them doing it with the lab mice than myself.

And the dichotomy is very real - governmental redistribution and social
engineering is very different thing from defending people's rights. You can
claim the government could do both - though practice suggests it is often
contradictory as redistribution and social engineering involves coercion - but
it is still very different things and very different approaches. If one
subscribes to the "rights" approach, than asking to elect more scientists is
the same as asking to elect more plumbers - one would recognize plumbers are
extremely helpful in their area of expertise, but what it has to do with the
elections?

------
teyc
The reason is fairly straightforward. Power moves in social circles.

It is the same reason why there aren't many lawyers who make it politically in
China.

Secondly, support has to be nurtured, and potential candidates groomed by
power brokers or king makers. These people act like VCs and are generally very
conservative when it comes to investing their scarce political resources.

------
kghose
Do we have the stats for how many scientists/engineers run for office to begin
with?

The central qualification to successfully run for office - straight faced
insincerity - might be counter to the training of most scientists/engineers.

The second qualification - enormous personal wealth - is not such a common
possession of most scientists, either.

------
arethuza
It's not just the United States that has this problem:

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/only-
scientist...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/only-scientist-in-
commons-alarmed-at-mps-ignorance-2041677.html)

------
Tripatimishra
In India we the Indians have elected DrManmohan Singh as our prime minister.
He was very known internationally as a good economists. He was also governor
of Reserve bank of India before coming to politics. Because of his reputation
of a good economist he was offered the post of finance minister in the late
nineties. He supported very much to the policies of
globalization,liberalization and India became a member of this draconian
policy. The poor people of India thought that by this change in economic
policy their standard of life will change. But it is very unfortunate that
after two decades of its implementation the poor people are ruined now. The
marginal farmers are ending their life by taking pesticides and insecticides
due to debt. More and more people are coming under below poverty line. Every
night some million Indians are going to the bed in empty stomach. Inflation
level is increasing day by day. Industrial workers are losing their job on
daily basis. On every part of this universe Indians are working as daily wage
laborers. Employment is a very big problem. Day by day the crime graph in
India is increasing. Transparency International in its annual survey report
termed as a most corrupt country. So leadership is not measured by some sort
of degrees or phd.

------
ekianjo
A short comment on why scientists are usually not interested in politics.
Scientists are in pursuit of the Truth, not power. Politics is too narrow
field to play on. Carl Sagan used the picture of the Earth from Space to show
that great leaders are basically men whose reach is limited to borders and
time, while astronomers were above all those considerations. That was a
powerful way to describe this.

------
buster
For one, i'd like to say:

It doesn't matter for Angela Merkel to have studied. What far more important
is to have knowledgable persons in the groups that make decisions and evaluate
new laws and for the ministers.

For what i can see in germany, most of those politicians and decision makers
are lawyers. It's terrible if you actually see what is said in a committee,
just a bunch of old people not knowing what they talk about.

------
robomartin
There's a far more fundamental problem in the US: The system and methods of
government have degenerated to the point of not producing anything of value. A
visitor from another planet would probably laugh hysterically at how
ridiculous the whole thing looks like from the outside.

Is this what the Roman Empire looked like?

~~~
dmoy
I don't think you need to find a visitor from another planet, just another
country.

~~~
robomartin
My attempt to be culturally neutral. You can always blame Martians and nobody
will get upset.

------
brudgers
> _"China has even more scientists in key positions in the government."_

Party elections are a bit of a stretch.

------
jshowa
I think part of the problem is that American's don't read enough. They don't
seek knowledge and understanding outside their own field. I mean it doesn't
take a lot to read a book about the scientific method, or a book about
statistics and try and learn it. Sure you won't be as good as someone who
studied it, but you can at least try and be well versed in the concepts. I
frequently read text books and do the exercises in them on my spare time.
However, American's are so enthralled in media culture that you can probably
make a good guess that most American's don't read on a regular basis, or read
those $2.00 novels you get at the gas station. In other words, what they read
doesn't have much substance.

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

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDX9dyjqimA>

------
pragmatic
I guess this is why China is in such great shape socially and environmentally.
The engineers and scientists have created a utopia.

"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. "

You can't make a claim "scientists make better leaders" then in the very next
paragraph, state the outcome of this leadership doesn't matter.

------
patrickwiseman
I believe one of the main points the article is highlighting is that science
would have better representation in U.S. law if more elected representative
were scientists, but this is not really true. Most laws aren't derived from
regulatory law, but rather from common law set through court cases. In my
opinion scientists are most useful as scientists, expert witnesses, and
lobbyists in that order.

------
bluekeybox
I hugely respect science per se -- but scientists and most other types of
intellectuals are typically people stuck working in a bureaucracy.

Working in a bureaucracy induces a particular type of thinking on an
individual -- I call it statist thinking -- that bureaucracy is not evil
(note: it is), that difficult decisions should be made through careful
deliberation and possibly collaboration with others instead of on your own (a
precondition for groupthink and a bad quality in an executive position which
by definition requires a degree of mental toughness). People who got rich and
successful outside of the bureaucratic system often become an object of envy
by people inside the system, even if they will consciously deny it, which then
leads to the perverted notion that the only way to make the world a fair place
is to increase the reach of the bureaucracy.

Now, America was founded by intellectuals (though not of bureaucratic kind).
The thing that distinguishes America from most other countries in the world is
that in America one specific type of freedom is respected: "freedom to rise".
In the old Europe people at the top were often members of aristocracy and it
was obvious to everyone that they didn't have to work as hard as everyone else
to get where they are. In America, people at the top were often (though I
admit not always -- just more often than in Europe) the hardest-working,
smartest, and toughest-minded individuals, and it was obvious to everyone that
they got there on their own. Bureaucracy, in a way, is a lot like aristocracy
(actually it is more like a medieval guild system), since it has its own
system of ranks, and you can't easily get from one to the other just through
working hard -- it has to be "bestowed" on you. Hence why Americans tend to
disrespect bureaucracy, and, by the way, that is a very good thing.

EDIT: downvoted: time to leave Hacker News.

------
gopi
Charismatic people with great oratory skills get elected, its as simple as
that!

In the south indian state (Tamilnadu) where i grew up most of the chief
ministers (governors) are former actors with no college degree. Yet that state
is relatively wealthy, what do you say about that?

------
liber8
The economist wrote a similar piece a few years back:
<http://www.economist.com/node/13496638>

I remember seeing a good discussion here on HN about the article, though it
seems to have disappeared.

------
bretr
Because we're not qualified. We barely elect officials let alone scientists.

------
neanderdog
Because they wouldn't pander to the dumbed-down majority.

------
pragmatic
This "article" belongs on Reddit.

------
mohene1
What's with the China bashing? We all believe in what we are used to. That
simple.

The author, as many commenters stated, does not define his article correctly?
To say America does not elect scientists assumes that the US has many
scientists who are rejected at the polls. A better question...Why don't more
scientists run for office.

First, an engineer or scientist in Germany is not the same as an
engineer/scientist in the US. The Bachelors degree (4 years of college), from
what I hear, is almost non-existent in Germany where a Diploma is standard.

Science is not Enough to Affect Change

The author does not state what problems scientists could solve. And science is
not everything. No policy can be implemented without the people's support.
Example, South African scientist Ivor van Heerden being told "Americans don't
live in tents" by US Army Corps of Engineers when discussing ways to house
citizens after a Hurricane, pre-Hurricane Katrina.

transcript [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9178501/ns/nightly_news-
nbc_news...](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9178501/ns/nightly_news-
nbc_news_investigates/t/was-fema-ready-disaster-katrina/)

Many engineers and scientists in the US are immigrants. Herbert Hoover's, the
only engineer/scientist president, parents or grandparents came from Germany.
Their original name was Huber. Hoover's technocrats were discredited after the
1929 stock market crash.

From my knowledge and little experience in advocacy, politics is ahem
...politics. Your successes are more about knowing and coercing the right
people, not really if the numbers add up. For instance, defunding a program to
balance the budget, might cost you and your party their hold on power.

Look how many scientists and doctors were researching HIV/AIDS. Their effect
was miniscule. The major investments did not come from scientist advocates.
The investments into HIV/AIDS came largely because Gay and Lesbian activists
(e.g. ACT-UP) pressured and coerced the pharmaceutical industry. The most
infamous act being the _real_ 1987 occupation and shutdown of Wall-Street
which resulted in real concessions.

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

This is how politics changes, by dedicated action.

As for Singapore, Singapore was ruled by Lee Kuan Yew (sp?) for about 36 years
(1970-1990s) so it should not be compared to democratically elected
governments,

Science has to be Accepted by the Population

As for climate change due to pollution. Politicians can't single handedly
change the climate, only a curtailing of the excessive consumption patterns of
the public can do that. I think it's silly to point at "anti-intellectuals" as
the source of climate change when 50% of the nation turns the air condition to
20C/68F when it is 30C/88F in the summer time. The air-condition being the
most energy expensive item in the household.

[http://205.254.135.7/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electric...](http://205.254.135.7/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_use)

Electricity use and hence pollution is more affected by climate and price in
the US as opposed to politics.

US Electricity Use vs. price and climate (grouped by color)

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/60012884@N00/4921667405/in/phot...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/60012884@N00/4921667405/in/photostream/)

------
funthree
Until the meme or whatever of people smugly laughing under their coats at
people for trying to sound smart or understand difficult concepts (and
sometimes getting it wrong) changes, which exists for whatever large number of
various mostly individualistic reasons, this will not change.

Rather the politician (silver tongues) who can convince both the
aforementioned types as well as those truly caring for reason will be elected.
The reason is large and without making too many blanket statements, I think
they are merely trickier to defeat when the game is all about making someone
look more wrong. The game is sadly enough, victorious for those who care more
about merely looking intelligent by a definition more widely accepted (by
being less wrong) than actually being intelligent (read:scientific, by
postulation and diligence even in regards to self) -- and largely the same
game is scrimmaged in courtrooms all day every day.

------
paulhauggis
To be honest, many people that have PHDs that I have met have horrendous
people skills. Yes, I want an intelligent person to run our country, but
serial killers also many times have very high IQs.

I want someone that is good with people and has intelligence.

------
hendrix
And bush is the only president so far with an MBA. Is the USA becoming
socialist? [/sarcasm].

<http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/02/gwb_hbs_mba.html>

------
sbierwagen

      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.
    

Whoa ho, hold _on_ there nigga. _Is you_ seriously holding up Singapore, of
all countries, as a shining example of flawless governance, to be emulated by
other nations?

The same Singapore that Amnesty International says has the highest per capita
capital punishment rate in the world? The same place that hangs people for
drug possession? 133rd out of 175 in Reporters Without Borders "press freedom"
index? The country where a quarter of the population is migrant workers, for
whom, conviently, labor laws don't apply?

Man, you're right! Sign me _up_ for some Singapore-style government! Sounds
great!

~~~
tirrellp
Sbierwagen, as a white male living in Seattle, whats with the offensive faux-
ebonics?

~~~
sbierwagen
I felt like burning some karma.

~~~
tirrellp
point taken.

