President Barack Obama’s appointment of academic scientists and economists to positions of high authority in his administration has been deemed a cause for celebration amongst researchers. However, in today’s Nature (458, 572-573; 2 April 2009), free to access online for one week, Robert Dallek urges caution and discusses how history has shown that an impressive academic record doesn’t guarantee good, impartial advice.
He writes: “The principal lesson I see in assessing the records of intellectually brilliant men such as Oppenheimer, Bundy, Rostow and Kissinger is that academics should always provide advice based on the best available evidence and try not to be swayed by lobbying, or by political or ideological considerations. Total abstinence from politics is not an option, especially for a secretary of energy or a secretary of state who have to take account of both domestic and international political cross-currents, or groups and nations pressing their special interests. Nevertheless, allowing political judgements to overshadow evidence-based understanding is a prescription for making the sorts of errors that are all too common among partisans elected to high offices.” Oppenhemier largely avoided this mistake but Bundy and Rostow did not, according to Professor Dallek. What can Steven Chu, John Holdren, Harold Varmus and Lawrence Summers learn from the successes and failures of their predecessors?
Robert Dallek is professor of history emeritus at the University of California, Los Angeles. He is the author of Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power (2007) and John F. Kennedy: An Unfinished Life (2003).
There is a free Nature podcast associated with this Essay.