January 7, 2008
Bloggers Nominate the Next White House Science Adviser
Reflecting on a recent article in Seed magazine, several bloggers have taken up the challenge of recommending science advisers for the next administration.
Should the next adviser be a physicist, as the previous four have been? Chris Mooney suggests that the next president might do better with a biomedical researcher, an environmental expert, or a “science celebrity,” like Steven Pinker or E.O. Wilson.
But Blake Stacey, over at Science after Sunclipse, thinks Mr. Wilson’s calls for environmental conservation will “draw the wrath of half the punditocracy.” And Scott Hatfield, of Monkey Trials, says Mr. Wilson’s role in sociobiology controversies “will be sifted through to find examples of alleged racism.”
Instead, Mr. Hatfield suggests choosing a former scientist who has moved into administrative duties “and who has some understanding of the weight lifting and making nice-nice that gets science funded.” He proposes (among others) Frances Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.
Matthew Nisbet seconds that nomination at Framing Science. He says Mr. Collins would be “a perfect science ambassador to religious America.”
But the person blogging as RPM at Evolgen criticizes the choice: “I think Collins has no academic credibility,” RPM writes, as a result of “his public displays of ignorance regarding evolutionary biology.” RPM does not nominate an alternative but says a science adviser should be chosen not for his or her religious beliefs, but “because they are a well-respected scientist with experience tackling about science to non-scientists.”
Lila Guterman | Posted on Monday January 7, 2008 | PermalinkComments
Previous: Romney Wins in Wyoming
Next: Why Hillary Can't Win ...
Render unto Science what is Science. Render unto Religion what is Religion. But fear not. They shall converge at the gates of Hell.
— marci Jan 7, 05:09 PM #
And who, Marci, gets the free pass?
— David Jan 7, 08:20 PM #
The job of the Science Adviser should be to understand and explain science. Generating the platitudes should be left to the politicians, whom we have after all elected for their platitudinous qualities anyway. In my view, the important qualification for a Science Adviser is not their ability to do research or to direct others in doing research, but rather their ability to explain science clearly, represent controversies accurately and learn about fields in which they were not formally trained. You don’t have to be doing research right now to have those skills, nor do you need an impressive backlog of project leadership, although of course you won’t have a deep enough understanding of science if all your knowledge about it comes from the magazines.
I don’t give a damn what a Science Adviser does on whatever day of the week he or she declares to be the Sabbath. However, I reserve the right to worry when, for any reason, a candidate for that position doesn’t live up to the standards which I believe the job requires.
— Blake Stacey Jan 8, 01:09 PM #