John Paulos is a Mathematics Professor at Temple University. Writing in the New York Times:
 |
| NYT Photo |
I’ve visited Singapore a few times in recent years and been impressed with its wealth and modernity. I was also quite aware of its world-leading programs in mathematics education and naturally noted that one of the candidates for president was Tony Tan, who has a Ph.D. in applied mathematics. Tan won the very close election and joined the government of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who also has a degree in mathematics.
China has even more scientists in key positions in the government. President Hu Jintao was trained as a hydraulic engineer and Premier Wen Jiabao as a geomechanical engineer. In fact, eight out of the nine top government officials in China have scientific backgrounds. There is a scattering of scientist-politicians in high government positions in other countries as well. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has a doctorate in physical chemistry, and, going back a bit, Margaret Thatcher earned a degree in chemistry.
China has even more scientists in key positions in the government. President Hu Jintao was trained as a hydraulic engineer and Premier Wen Jiabao as a geomechanical engineer. In fact, eight out of the nine top government officials in China have scientific backgrounds. There is a scattering of scientist-politicians in high government positions in other countries as well. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has a doctorate in physical chemistry, and, going back a bit, Margaret Thatcher earned a degree in chemistry.
I personally think it's a matter of motivation. For example, Einstein refused the position of Israel's second president. It's kind of in the "nerd blood," with the notable NYT article exceptions.
Usually, politics is not seen as a "STEM Career," so many don't even think to pursue such a path beyond the lab/fab. Dealing with a circuit/test tube/sample is far simpler than saying the right sound-bite-tested phrase for the cameras. It's quieter than a political rally.
It's also my observation that politicans have "emotional intelligence," meaning they can "move a crowd," a skill they need if they want to maintain a job. A skill unnecessary in a laboratory. Tech types tend to be self-motivated.
From Wikipedia: The term technocracy was originally used to designate the application of the scientific method to solving social problems, in counter distinction to the traditional economic, political or philosophic approaches. According to the proponents of this concept, the role of money and economic values, political opinions, and moralistic control mechanisms would be eliminated altogether if and when this form of social control should ever be implemented in a continental area endowed with enough natural resources, technically trained personnel, and installed industrial equipment so as to allow for the production and distribution of physical goods and services to all continental citizens in an amount exceeding the individuals' physical ability to consume.
This would, unfortunately create a new "class" of being that only specialized knowledge would allow the ascendancy to the governing body. Since it would only require a select few, much as our current system of governance, it would become quite evident that the shift of power would favor one group (s) over others. The world does not work like Star Trek, or Vulcan. Our baser instincts would prevail. (Besides, it ultimately didn't work so well on the fictional home of Superman - they, er... blew up.)
However, the current pandering to focus groups and "the base" needs to cease. Our leaders need SOME appreciation of science for clear decision-making, else they will model an anti-intellectualism that will soon become the "new normal," one we will not recover from...for maybe a generation.
This would, unfortunately create a new "class" of being that only specialized knowledge would allow the ascendancy to the governing body. Since it would only require a select few, much as our current system of governance, it would become quite evident that the shift of power would favor one group (s) over others. The world does not work like Star Trek, or Vulcan. Our baser instincts would prevail. (Besides, it ultimately didn't work so well on the fictional home of Superman - they, er... blew up.)
However, the current pandering to focus groups and "the base" needs to cease. Our leaders need SOME appreciation of science for clear decision-making, else they will model an anti-intellectualism that will soon become the "new normal," one we will not recover from...for maybe a generation.
New York Times: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?
No comments:
Post a Comment