Why Scientists Would Make The Worst (And Best) Politicians.

by Katie O Flaherty

Scientists protesting the Trump administration

Nowadays more than ever, in England the majority of politicians are career politicians, thus they are seen by many to have a deficit of knowledge about the struggles of the everyday working peoples. Particularly with the large amount of support for President Trump’s being a ‘political outsider’, it brings into question whether it would be preferable to have a potentially more representative sample of the population to lead the country; people who have had experiences and careers of their own outside of politics.

Thus I am led to think of my own future, and my own desire to pursue a career in science and engineering, yet my fascination with politics, and how the decisions of a supposedly representative few can affect the lives of every person in the country. A common bug-bear of mine in the realm of politics is the frequent lack of straight-talking, and non-biased statistics - if there is such a thing. On the other hand, reading articles on scientific discoveries can strike a stark difference, due to the way that, generally, the articles are primarily filled with facts and the use of (usually) precise evidence to back up any theories or speculation.

Therefore, my next natural thought is to think of what would happen if a scientist or engineer were to, with an unbiased, unpolluted mind, take the career change to politics. On one hand, many of the public say they would be highly appreciative of someone speaking straight out truths, and proposing straightforward, factually based plans to resolve plans. This is, in a loose way, shown by the significant proportion of support in the USA towards President Trump’s plans to resolve what he deems to be issues, and his seemingly very straightforward solutions. I wish to clarify now that I am not supporting nor opposing his ideology, but simply using his methods in an abstract manner, from a general observation.

This supposed desire for the truth, however, by the general public, is in a strange way disproved by the very nature of their ways of seeking truth. The positive reinforcement given to a person by reading a newspaper which agrees with their views serves to discourage the vast majority from looking elsewhere, for any opinion which may differ too drastically from their own. Thus, if a scientist were to lay bare the facts on economics, for example, many would still want to deny any faults in the system, and so would just look elsewhere to find ‘facts’ that agreed with their own views.

In addition to this, the frank, straightforward way that many scientists would relay their information  and plans to the public would leave much room for expressive artistic licence by journalists that disagreed, with short, out of context quotes being selected for front-page headlines which completely misrepresent the well-meaning words of the innocent scientist. The excessively verbose manner of communication by modern politicians is not only used to avoid answering ‘awkward’ questions for them, but also to avoid any blazing headlines to ruin their aims and reputation. Consequently, unless people would be prepared to get their information from the source, and only from the source, the distortion caused by second or third-hand reports may completely change the meaning and connotations of the initial statement.

The problem-solving mindset of engineers would be a sincerely helpful contribution to the many problems facing government, and their matter-of-fact approach to situations would help lead to more efficiently reached solutions, with less deliberation and dilution from non-factual views. Their ability to look at the long-term consequences of a decision, and see a situation from a more distanced, objective perspective would also help to gear the country for a more successful future. Although this may be a great asset for the long term, this potentially emotionless approach may lead to a lot more short-term hardship, especially for those who are more in need of help, thus a balance would have to be struck between both long-term and short-term benefits.

To conclude, much as, from a certain perspective, government could be made up of people who would only consider cold hard fact, and use this to create and present a straightforward solution. This, when other external factors are taken into consideration, is really not a feasible method of governance, with politicians who said what people wanted to hear, in a long-winded manner that does not allow for misinterpretation, gaining far more support than the frank, honest, and innocent engineer, thus showing how, at least in this day and age, honesty and fact have their place in politics, which is clearly not always at the forefront of the discussion, but hidden somewhere in the background, under a shroud of statistics and excuses.