 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
About the Author
Dan Greenberg is a longtime observer of science policy and politics. He is the author of "Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards, and Delusions of Campus Capitalism" (University of Chicago Press), as well as other books, and has published widely in newspapers and popular and professional magazines.
About Brainstorm
Mark Bauerlein
Marc Bousquet
Laurie Fendrich
Dan Greenberg
John L. Jackson Jr.
Stan Katz
Marty Nemko, guest blogger
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg
Brainstorm Alumni
Bob ZemskyRecent Posts
'Rebranding' Engineering | Comment [13]
Prizes Won't Beat the Energy Crunch ... | Comment [8]
Detecting Scientific Fraud | Comment [4]
Countering Big Pharma's Misuse of Academic Prestige | Comment [7]
Featured Articles By the Author
Absent from Politics, As Usual: Scientists and Engineers
One of the durable oddities of American politics is the near absence of scientists and engineers (S&Es) from the ranks of office seekers — starting with the presidency and continuing down the elective scale. On the lobbying front, another venue for manifesting political interest, organized efforts by S&Es have been nonexistent in recent decades or feeble to the point of invisibility.
This is indeed odd, given the centrality of science and technology in contemporary affairs, S&Es dependence on Washington for money and policy direction, and the turn to political affairs that frequently occurs in conversations among scientists and engineers. They’re interested and they care, and apparently they turn out to vote in high numbers. But, with very rare exceptions, they don’t run for office or organize under their professional identities, as lawyers, physicians, bankers, and others regularly do.
As usual, they’re absent from the current crop of presidential aspirants, which, predictably, is heavy with lawyers, plus a Baptist minister. The last president with a scientific credential was Jimmy Carter, an Annapolis graduate who trained as a nuclear engineer. His presidential predecessor in the S&E ranks was Herbert Hoover, a mining engineer, elected in 1928. Then there was Thomas Jefferson, a couple of centuries ago.
The House of Representatives consists of 540 members, of whom currently 170 hold law degrees, 13 are MDs, and three are dentists, according to the Congressional Research Service. Looking for members identified as scientists or engineers, we find seven: two physicists, two chemists, one “biomedical researcher,” one biomedical engineer, and one microbiologist. There are no S&Es listed for the 100-member Senate, where the lawyer count totals 58.
Some explanation for the political scarcity of S&Es may be found in their patterns of professional development, which contrast sharply with the out-and-about gregariousness that can help a starting lawyer become known in the community and develop a practice. While the young postdoc is working late in the lab, the up-and-coming attorney is taking a first step up the political ladder by serving on the school board.
But beyond that, a tacit code of non-partisan political aloofness also keeps scientists and their professional organizations from plunging into politics. The sole exception on any serious scale occurred in the 1964 presidential campaign, when Republican Barry Goldwater alarmed the scientific establishment with nuclear saber-rattling — including a warning that, as president, he’d respond to Soviet misbehavior by dropping a missile into the men’s room in the Kremlin. Thousands teamed up under the banner of Scientists & Engineers for Johnson-Humphrey, raised a lot of money, and helped defeat Goldwater in landslide. The next day, however, the scientific leadership explained that the mobilization was a one-shot affair made necessary by extraordinary circumstances and should not be regarded as a precedent or model for future elections.
And ever since, there’s been nothing like it — not even in 2004, when the scientific establishment was in a raging fury about George W. Bush’s repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol and his restrictions on federal funding of human embryo stem cell research, among his other depredations against the interests of science. Nobel laureates and other scientific eminences dutifully signed petitions of protest, but campaign cash and organized votes are what counts in Washington, and neither was proffered by the aggrieved scientists.
The paradox of science today is that it is at the heart of politics and power, the source of controversy, problems, and solutions across a vast spectrum of human affairs, from climate change to arms control, from genetic engineering to privacy protection. At the same time, however, scientists and engineers have become invisible wizards. In our celebrity-worshiping culture, no scientist holds wide public recognition. The late Carl Sagan was perhaps the last scientist who was well known to the general public — and that was mainly because of his talent as a TV performer, rather than as an astronomer.
The senior scientist in the U.S. government, John Marburger III, science adviser to the president, one of the longest serving officials in the Bush administration, is virtually unknown in Washington outside of the intersection of science and politics.
When the late Rep. George Brown (D-Calif.), a science aficionado, chaired the House Science Committee, he wryly observed that scientists regularly came to him seeking help for problems with money, visas, bureaucratic bungles, etc. But Brown, who held office by very narrow margins, said they rarely reciprocated with the help he needed at campaign time.
There’s talk about scientists mobilizing for participation in the coming presidential election. But it’s doubtful that more than a token effort will ensue, even with mounting dissatisfaction in regard to what science wants most from Washington — money and a minimum of regulation.
Fighting on the political battlefield is not the way of science, even in response to stagnant budgets and heavy handed political intrusions in areas once considered sovereign scientific territory.
Posted at 04:14:07 PM on January 5, 2008 | All postings by Dan GreenbergComments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: You Don't Have to Understand Science to Support It
Next: Take a Polygraph? Don't Do It, Roger
Service in political office is very compatible with being an attorney. One can serve for awhile, then return to being an attorney, hardly skipping a beat, and often having enhanced one’s position. That is much less true for a research scientist who must remain at the cutting edge of his/her field and maintain a laboratory and an unbroken stream of research funding. It is also tough for academicians who are on the tenure track—much moreso in biology or engineering than in political science or economics. It is a problem, but I don’t see many scientists finding the writing of legislation very fulfilling. Maybe it would be best if every legislator had some highly qualified and active scientists as consultants.
— Joe Erwin · Jan 7, 07:49 AM · #
It is also true that the House Research and Science Educcation Committee has five Ph.D.s on it. From Chairman Brian Baird, a psychologist (yes social and behavioral scientists count as scientists according to NSF and NIH); Ranking Republican Vern Ehlers of Michigan, a physicist; Dan Lipinski of Illinois, a political scientist; Gerald McNerny of California, a mathematician; and Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, a physiologist.
Not as many as we would like, but a start!
— Howard Silver · Jan 7, 09:10 AM · #
I should point out, by-the-way, that Roscoe Bartlett of MD is, indeed, an accomplished scientist, and at the same time, he is a “devout” Seventh-day Adventist Christian. Whether or not he believes in “young earth” creationism, as is the official dogma of his church, I do not know. Some members of the church do not accept the official dogma of the church.
— Joe Erwin · Jan 8, 11:16 PM · #