 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
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
Michael Nelson, guest blogger
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg
Brainstorm Alumni
Marty Nemko, guest bloggerBob Zemsky
Recent Posts
McCain and Obama Differ Little on Science Policy | Comment [5]
A Name on a Mailing List Is Forever | Comment
Stodgy NIH Announces New Program for Risky, Far-Out Reseach | Comment [2]
Obama Outlines Changes for Science Policy | Comment [4]
Where $1-Million Is Modest Pay | Comment [26]
Featured Articles By the Author
Scientists' Political Dream World
This is the season when political hallucinations erupt in the scientific community.
Rare to nonexistent among other academic and professional disciplines, the phenomenon is driven by scientists’ reverence for science and dependence on government money. The neglect of these matters — especially the latter — on the presidential campaign trail has produced petitions for a presidential debate on science (discussed in my January 8 post here).
Now comes an earnest appeal for going beyond mere debate (which has not yet happened, nor is it likely to). Titled “A Physicist for President,” it’s by U.S. Rep. Vern J. Ehlers, Republican of Michigan, who is a rarity in the U.S. Congress. He’s a nuclear physicist, one of only seven Ph.D scientists among the 535 members of the House and Senate.
Writing in the February issue of APS News, published by the American Physical Society (subscription required), Ehlers states that “as a physicist, I hope that in my lifetime, someone who holds an advanced degree in physics or some other science, will run for and win our nation’s top office.” Why this hope?
“A scientist in the Oval Office,” Ehlers argues, “would bring good analytical skills to decision making in the White House, and would appreciate the need for a population well-versed in science…. A physicist’s platform would also include sustained investment in fundamental research…. It is time for us to catch up to the substantial investments other nations are making [in research and science education].”
To the extent that we can draw insights from on-the-job performance, the value of scientific or technical training for presidents is not apparent. In modern times, the only presidents with either kind of schooling were Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer, and Herbert Hoover, a mining engineer. Both have their fans, but are generally rated low to calamitous in presidential performance, and were ousted after one term.
Like all other West Pointers of his time, Ulysses Grant was trained in engineering. He rates high in generalship, but his presidency was a disaster. West Pointer Eisenhower gets mixed grades for his White House performance. Jefferson alone might serve as a model for a modern scientist-politician-president, but given today’s high hurdles for advanced scientific accreditation and the competitiveness of politics, it’s not surprising that a mere seven scientists hold seats in Congress.
Political operatives on the receiving end of the scientists’ appeals for attention are unmoved. Scientists rarely organize or collect money in support of their political friends. Their perennial complaints about inadequate financial support by Washington are generally disregarded as standard, selfish clamor from government dependents.
The same applies to quadrennial appeals for the prompt appointment of senior science officials by incoming presidents — to be on board on the very first day of a new administration. Issued by the National Academy of Sciences, these appeals for recognition of the importance of science usually rate scant notice during the hectic transition period between election and inaugural.
Following Bill Clinton’s election in 1992, scientists, singly and in groups, crowded into his downtown transition offices to appeal for immediate naming of heads of research agencies and special attention to pumping up science budgets.
An aide who was designated to hear their appeals told me: “It’s like talking to mental patients. You have to look like you take them seriously.”
Posted at 10:17:10 AM on February 20, 2008 | All postings by Dan GreenbergComments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Conflicts of Interest at Medical Schools
Next: A Closer Look at the 'War on Science'
Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel holds a PhD in Physics and it certainly has not influenced her science agenda which is as muddled as the one of her predescessor.
— Michael · Feb 22, 05:08 PM · #
Dan—I don’t get it. Two days after this post you wrote, “Mobilization aimed at the ballot box is the way other sectors respond to their grievances. But that’s not the way of science.” So what gives? Should scientists seek more mobilization or not?
— Dave · Feb 25, 02:39 PM · #