You often see editorials in Nature (so who writes them, then, guys?) bemoaning poor science funding or complaining about some other way that politicians mess up the scientific establishment.

However, when you look at the different views on reality espoused by politicians and scientists, it’s not entirely surprising that politicians find it difficult to grok science.

Take our most scientifically educated Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. She famously said words to the effect of ‘You turn if you want to; the lady’s not for turning.’ (Editorial types, please note use of semi-colon. Do I get a point?)

Politicians hate the concept of changing their mind. Once they’ve settled on a policy, that’s the way things have to stay.

Science, however, thrives on U-turns. In a good Popperian sense, it’s the U-turns that fuel scientific advance. It’s only by disproving theories we can take steps forward.

Science, in the end, is aiming for accuracy in fact. Politics doesn’t really care so much about the content – it’s the presentation that matters.

If that isn’t a recipe for a clash, then what is?

Do I offer a solution? Not a complete one. However, it does seem to suggest, as mentioned in many places on this site (see for example this and here) that scientists need to put more work into their presentation, to be able to gain the politicians’ attention (‘Shiny things, chaps, shiny things! Come and look!’).

Equally, politicians need to be forcibly educated in the scientific method, logical thinking and handling data. How about a compulsory ‘scientific method and logical thinking 101’ course that every new MP has to take before taking their seat in the house?