In recent years, there has been a trend for the training of scientists to enter into public service leadership positions. Perhaps the most recent and most notable is US DOE Secretary Steven Chu. Secretary Chu is considered a Washington-outsider with an objective analytic outlook on America's energy issues. Really, you think so ? Even as a scientist, Dr. Chu had his own scientific predilections at Stanford and SLAC; why would he not have a political oppinion. So, the thinking in the science community has been to get others like Dr. Chu into public service leadership posts. Dr. Chu was appointed by the President, but it's alot harder to win an election. Another physicist, Bill Foster ( from Fermilab ) was formerly a Democratic congressman from Illinois and served one term then lost in his incumbent race to a Republican.
Some advocates for scientists in Congress say that scientists should enter the public service in order to vote on legislation and $100 million budgets that effect science and education. But transforming a professional scientist to become a professional politician would require some special training beyond advocacy. Why not just gather scientists to advocate for their causes and put their money where their mouths are and campaign for actual politicians who will be on their side. We need more scientists not scientists becoming politicians. Bigger science and smaller government would be better.
For more reading, see the NY Times:
No comments:
Post a Comment