Alternatively, the question may be what draws so many humanities and social science graduates towards politics, but repels scientists? Following this article in the Independent, where the only scientists currently sitting in the UK House of Commons laments the embarrassing lack of basic scientific knowledge amongst his peers, why are we seeing such a disparity between the various disciplines? Further, is this disparity actually harmful when it comes to dictating policy?
Because they’re busy doing science?
I think a hallmark of almost every political leader of any political philosophy is the need to draw attention to themselves and their movement. To sell themselves and their ideas. Many lawyers are politicians, so also are many businessmen (especially in local governments, up to state governors).
I think scientists for the most part make money doing their work, and eschew the selling of what products and service they create. I think a lot of these people are introverts who like to hang out with other scientists/people in their field.
Most scientists are dedicated at whatever it is that they do and devote all their time to it. All the studying from childhood into their early to mid 20’s may inhibit social skills. People who are “dedicated to one thing and one thing only” sometimes tend to see with blinders on.
My guess as to the careers of people who end up as elected officials are:
- Lawyers
- Everyone else.
And scientists are far down the list of careers in category 2.
Lawyers have a natural interest in politics (it’s all about making, enforcing and interpreting the law - their chosen career area). Lawyers who do run for office are the ones who are out there meeting people and getting clients - useful skills when they need to meet lots of people and persuade them to vote.
Scientists, IMHO, would rather be doing science. Writing budgets, settling treaties, negotiating between people arguing to the death about abortion, immigration, ad nauseam, just isn’t what they want to do. Controversies are settled with better experimental results, not more yelling.
Old joke: A young physicist goes to an older physicist for advice. After they’ve spoken for a while, the old physicist says “What you need to do is get a mistress. That way your wife will think you’re with your mistress, your mistress will think you’re with your wife, and you can be in the lab doing physics.”
Does that sound like the attitude of someone who’s going to campaign for an elected office?
I recall reading, some time ago, that the tradition of lawyers dominating politics is peculiar to English speaking countries. In Europe most politicians, supposedly, have some sort of academic background. Whatever I was reading was discussing the French pragmatism about the use of nuclear energy and how it related to the non-legal background of French legislators.
So why aren’t economists busing economising, and lawyers busy practicing law?
Isn’t being an elected official doing both of those things?
Because those things are boring. Also, the law of the land has a great deal more impact on what lawyers and economists do than it does on what scientist do so the temptation to muck with it directly is greater. Changing the tax structure is not going to impact the speed of light, but it can impact the speed of money.
FWIW, a significant chunk of of China’s leadership, including Hu Jintao, graduated with degrees in Engineering.
I suspect it’s because we specialize. Becoming a biologist doesn’t exactly put you on the fast track to a political career in the United States. If you want to get into politics then law or other subjects will probably get you into the door.
Exactly. It’s not that many lawyers are politicians - it’s that many politicians are lawyers. But they’re always politicians first and lawyers second, if at all.
That’s very common in developing countries.
If you are into politics, you are probably interested in people. People who are interested in people tend to major in social sciences, etc.
China does have a tradition of having engineers as politicians. I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader if this is proof that scientists would make better leaders.
How many politicians have PhDs of any kind? A legal education is collective, somewhat social (“demented and sad, but social”), and frankly not that taxing. The skill set overlaps with that of a successful politician to some extent, and the career path can benefit from and leave time in the day for networking with people who will be useful to political endeavors.
By contrast, a PhD typically requires many years of very time-consuming work, often undertaken on a solitary or semi-solitary basis. One might say that the area where scientists and politicians overlap is the constant need for fund-raising, but even there, the skills required are probably quite different.
That’s not actually what the article says.
Possessing an undergraduate degree doesn’t make you a scientist.
I think you’ve got to be a little bit OCD to be a really good scientist, and really good scientists aren’t always the most people-savvy individuals… okay, there are exceptions, but, be honest!
Lawyer in politics are essentially playing the same sport, just at a different level.
A scientist entering politics would be entering a different sport (discipline), so to speak. It would be the same as asking, “Why so few chefs playing in orchestras?”
My take:
Most of the scientists I’ve met are hardly arousing public speakers. In addition:
[ul]
[li]Scientists are, in general, very smart. Ignorant people can reflexively dislike that. (Not that all Americans are ignorant, but quite a few are.)[/li]
[li]Scientists are, in general, atheists. Which cuts them out for the running right there.[/li]
[li]Scientists don’t get rich enough to just stop working and campaign for a year.[/li]
[li]Scientists can’t run in Republican primaries, because they’ll get kicked in the nuts for “never making a payroll”.[/li][/ul]
The biggest factor is that there just plain aren’t all that many scientists, period. What proportion of the population is made up of scientists? Is it even 1/535?
I don’t know about other countries but the French seem to place a lot of value on engineering degrees.