Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

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.

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

Its not who you elect that matters. Its how decentralized the system is and how limited the power of the government is that matters.<p>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.<p>But when the government is limited and very decentralized, its not going to attract sociopaths as much.<p>In Switzerland, each member of a 7 person council takes a one-year turn presiding.<p>There's a joke about it actually. A tourist is discussing this with a Swiss man he bumped into.<p>After asking many other questions, the tourist finally asks "So who is president this year?" The Swiss man replied "Oh, this year its me."

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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.

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.<p>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?<p>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.<p>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.<p><a href="http://rangevoting.org" rel="nofollow">http://rangevoting.org</a>, despite its nominal bias, is the best voting system resource anywhere.<p>[1] for instance: <a href="http://bolson.org/voting/irv/" rel="nofollow">http://bolson.org/voting/irv/</a> IRV fails monotonicity, which IMO is a huge deal. <a href="http://rangevoting.org/Monotone.html" rel="nofollow">http://rangevoting.org/Monotone.html</a>

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

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

Why <i>do</i> Americans elect lawyers?<p>Laws and contracts are the operands of government. Money and a convincing demeanor are the operators of elections.<p>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.<p>The chief complaint about current US reps isn't that they're not scientific, but that they're not <i>aware of facts</i> and that they're only aware of <i>some</i> people. Scientists make no claims on being aware of people, and are deeply aware of <i>some</i> facts.<p>What we need in Government are intelligent yet <i>humble</i> 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.<p>Good luck on that talent search, America.

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.<p>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: <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html" rel="nofollow">http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolu...</a> that's almost at rock bottom, undercut only by Turkey.

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").<p>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.

Why would a scientist <i>want</i> to be a politician? So they can spend their days fighting over paperwork instead of solving problems they're passionate about?<p>The kind of people that want to be scientists would have no interest in politics, beyond what it takes to get them funding.

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

It isn't that Americans <i>don't</i> elect a particular type of person, it's that Americans <i>do</i> 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.<p>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.

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 <i>"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"</i>? The latter case would probably affect scientist-politicians as well.

That is an easy one. Scientists are good at objective truth, facts, etc.<p>Most political decisions are however highly subjective, and based on values, principles and opinions.<p>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.<p>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.

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.<p>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?

The reason is fairly straightforward. Power moves in social circles.<p>It is the same reason why there aren't many lawyers who make it politically in China.<p>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.

Do we have the stats for how many scientists/engineers run for office to begin with?<p>The central qualification to successfully run for office - straight faced insincerity - might be counter to the training of most scientists/engineers.<p>The second qualification - enormous personal wealth - is not such a common possession of most scientists, either.

It's not just the United States that has this problem:<p><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/only-scientist-in-commons-alarmed-at-mps-ignorance-2041677.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/only-scientist...</a>

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.

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.

For one, i'd like to say:<p>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.<p>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.

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.<p>Is this what the Roman Empire looked like?

&#62;<i>"China has even more scientists in key positions in the government."</i><p>Party elections are a bit of a stretch.

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.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy</a><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDX9dyjqimA" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDX9dyjqimA</a>

I guess this is why China is in such great shape socially and environmentally. The engineers and scientists have created a utopia.<p>"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. "<p>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.

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.

I hugely respect science per se -- but scientists and most other types of intellectuals are typically people stuck working in a bureaucracy.<p>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.<p>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.<p>EDIT: downvoted: time to leave Hacker News.

Charismatic people with great oratory skills get elected, its as simple as that!<p>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?

The economist wrote a similar piece a few years back: <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/13496638" rel="nofollow">http://www.economist.com/node/13496638</a><p>I remember seeing a good discussion here on HN about the article, though it seems to have disappeared.

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

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

This "article" belongs on Reddit.

What's with the China bashing? We all believe in what we are used to. That simple.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Science is not Enough to Affect Change<p>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.<p>transcript <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9178501/ns/nightly_news-nbc_news_investigates/t/was-fema-ready-disaster-katrina/" rel="nofollow">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9178501/ns/nightly_news-nbc_news...</a><p>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.<p>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.<p>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 <i>real</i> 1987 occupation and shutdown of Wall-Street which resulted in real concessions.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_Coalition_to_Unleash_Power" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_Coalition_to_Unleash_Power</a><p>This is how politics changes, by dedicated action.<p>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,<p>Science has to be Accepted by the Population<p>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.<p><a href="http://205.254.135.7/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_use" rel="nofollow">http://205.254.135.7/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electric...</a><p>Electricity use and hence pollution is more affected by climate and price in the US as opposed to politics.<p>US Electricity Use vs. price and climate (grouped by color)<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/60012884@N00/4921667405/in/photostream/" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/photos/60012884@N00/4921667405/in/phot...</a>

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.<p>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.

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

And bush is the only president so far with an MBA. Is the USA becoming socialist? [/sarcasm].<p><a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/02/gwb_hbs_mba.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/02/gwb_hbs_mba.html</a>

<p><pre><code> 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. </code></pre> Whoa ho, hold <i>on</i> there nigga. <i>Is you</i> seriously holding up Singapore, of all countries, as a shining example of flawless governance, to be emulated by other nations?<p>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?<p>Man, you're right! Sign me <i>up</i> for some Singapore-style government! Sounds great!