I picked up the following news story about science and politics in todays Times. Apparently the Conservative party intends to send all its new MPs after the next election on a course to improve their “science awareness”. What that means is not made clear but I guess it will be an improvement on the current situation.
The article also states that in both the cabinet and the shadow cabinet there is only one person who possesses degree level training in science, engineering or medicine. That is: one chemistry degree in the cabinet and one medical degree in the shadow cabinet. British politics at cabinet level appears to be dominated by lawyers and people trained in the humanities. It would be interesting to know whether this is repeated in the political bodies of other countries, or whether other biases predominate (influence of Grande Ecole of Administration in France?). Science does not have a high priority in UK politics and the article states that the Conservative Party manifesto in 2005 did not include the word “science”. This must be a bad thing when science impacts on education, the environment, energy policy, national security, health and many other areas of importance to the nation state.
Should we be concerned about the lack of scientific training in our politicians? Some might argue that it is equally or more important that they should be able to read company accounts and balance sheets. However, with politics at even the lowest level becoming increasingly a full time job, and one that aspiring future cabinet ministers enter pretty much straight after university (as did Cameron and Osborne), there is less and less likelihood of politicians being exposed to scientific thinking before they have to make and vote on decisions.
There are two questions that could be aired. One is why are there so few scientists in politics? Are scientists uninterested in politics (outside the need to lobby for greater research funding of course) or are the skills required for both occupations so different that crossover never occurs? The other is are scientists so bad at communicating that politicians ignore what they say and budding politicians do not think it is an important topic for study?
Finally, should all political parties offer this scientific re-education that the Conservatives appear to be offering?
I’d love to attribute the following quote to an undergrad Professor of mine (Prof. Keith Vickerman, Glasgow Uni), when he gave an excellent lecture about the government’s handling of various science related “disasters” in the UK (e.g., salmonella, BSE) but my memory is vague, perhaps I made it up.
Seems like nothing’s changed in the last 15 years…
These are fantastic questions, for which I do not have fantastic answers (yet). I know that I am a “political junky” (even before the recent U.S. elections. My only answer is that we (scientists) are trained to look for points of control – how can we test our hypothesis? (reductionists). This is not necessarily possible in the political environment where the system is so big (even on the local level) and the emotional rhetoric can be overwhelming. Maybe, with the increasing interest in Systems Biology we will produce more scientists who can be better prepared for an active and vocal participation.
I would love to see more political parties introduce this scheme – what a fantastic idea! And I am astounded that the Tories could produce a manifesto without the word Science appearing even once.
However, there is a factor that you didn’t mention – the “anti-boffin” sentiment of the British public. I wasn’t truly aware of the extent of this problem until I moved to Canada, and got a completely different reaction when asked what I do for a living than I did in the UK. For example, my husband’s colleagues (carpenters, painters, welders) love talking about science, and will bring up studies they’ve read about in the paper when they meet me. Taxi drivers want to discuss cancer epidemiology. In contrast, in the UK, I would get “oh, you must be very clever” (as if that was a bad thing), or “don’t understand any of that stuff myself”. Even my own parents and sister are guilty of the same thing. Given that the number of actual working scientists in the population is pretty small, and there is little interest in science from the general population, there is not much incentive for politicians to include science in their campaign materials and speeches. (Of course the current Canadian prime minister has been widely condemned for abolishing the post of national science advisor, so what do I know?!).
I don’t know enough about other countries to know if this is a common theme, but I can’t think of any modern US presidents with a scientific background, for example. Not off the top of my head anyway.
There’s a big problem here – and that is that politics and science require two different modes of thought. Science requires
honestythe ability to be comfortable with uncertainties. Politics, well … doesn’t.@Cath. I am not sure that your stereotype fits the population at large. I am often asked to describe what I do and usually find myself tongue tied as I try and simplify but not talk down to the audience. However, what you describe is certainly a characteristic of some of the older generation. Taxi drivers in Manchester are quite intrigued about medical engineering but I find it harder to explain my other interests in nanomechanics.
@Henry. Never underestimate the desire of a politician to achieve/retain power. if that requires an understanding of the scientific method they will apply themselves to the task in hand. I think you are being unkind to politicians as to certainties. Most governments veer about as they respond to the turbulence of the world. Note the sudden conversion of the USA to state aid for industry and the Nationalisation of Banks in the UK. Of course that doesn’t mean we have to like politicians but if a few more were exposed to the scientific method (and not just medicine) that might broaden the collective world view.
Well, I didn’t change my approach when I moved over the pond, but the reaction sure is different! There are lots of other transplanted scientists on NN – I’d be very interested to read about their experiences in the UK vs. continental Europe vs. North America vs. Australia…
When I worked one summer in Nashville no-one wanted to discuss science but loads of people wanted to hear my British accent.
As someone permanently based in the US since birth and not technically a scientist (I’m an engineer), I’d say the US has a sizeable anti-science bias, though it is lessoning as the country grows younger and science is more directly linked to computer wonders and miracle cures. It also depends a lot on the groups you are interacting with – the science-initiated tend to speak with like-minded folks, not with the average discount shopper.
Henry made the point about the difference between science and politics more eloquently than I could, but I’ll try anyway: Science is about the possible, politics is about wish fulfillment.
@James
not technically a scientist (I’m an engineer)
I think that distinction is artificial. I have badged myself as both depending on occasion. To be an engineer you must have a sound grounding in some of the sciences. I would be happy if more politicians were trained as engineers too.
I thought that scientists took things apart to find out how they work, and engineers put them back together again to find that they still don’t work?
@Richard – Thats a surgeon, not an engineer.
Same thing, shirley?
The art of engineering is a science. Theologically speaking, of course.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has a PhD in physics. The science education in Germany is, I believe, more or less comparable to the UK, and funding for public schools has been mostly pathetic for a few years.
Other priorities?
Thanks for the kind (and in Richard’s case, insightful) engineering comments.
One area of the US that is really seeing – and going to see – the problem with poor science/technology background in politics (and the public and media) is in energy policy. Politicians speak of all sorts of energy “solutions” with no clue how to implement them. Various pundits and think tanks, who have never actually tried to generate a megawatt or design a car themselves (and seem to talk only to high level executives and spokesmen in these fields) put out books and papers. Then all this talk is reviewed by a media with the same level of expertise. The result is unrealistic (at times silly) projections and promises, and little recognition of the real challenges and their real costs in the energy biz.
I sent copies of my book Rad Decision to a number of these folks and pointed out it was free on the net to many more. As the first and only insider (that is, realistic) account of the US nuclear industry written for the average consumer, I thought there would be at least a minimal level of interest. (People are busy, I know.) One national reporter did read it (and apparently thought it was ok) – but that was about it. I eventually concluded I should have followed through on my plans for an affair with Hillary Clinton, as my opinion on anything would then have been newsworthy.
My favorite US energy moment is an interview with a US Senator some time ago when the US was considering a BTU tax. He read the definition of a BTU and then pointed out the absurdity of basing a tax on heating up a cubic centimeter of water one degree Celsius. (Remember, here in the US, even the words centimeter and Celsius are foreign to most.) The reporter let him speak and didn’t ask a followup. That’s often our level of discourse.
If only there were more like Ian McEwan.
I found Mr. McEwan’s article to be excellent, based on the fact I agreed with most of it (I think he oversells the diffuse energy of solar a bit) and that he covered a lot of ground. He did note that “the costs will be enormous, the benefits will not be immediately obvious to many consumers”. In the last thirty years such things have been political suicide in the US, as living on credit for the moment has come to be viewed as almost a national right. Perhaps the new Prez is the man to move past that – I hope so – but it’s worth remembering he only got 55% of the actual popular vote, and many members of his own party are facing re-election in two years and need to make the public feel better right now. Jeez, I just depressed myself.