There is not a single former scientist-turned-senator, which I must say is very disappointing since unless they were EPA (or other niche) lawyers or have pursued a single scientific issue as doggedly as Al Gore has, none of them appear to have a firm grasp on current scientific affairs… or even the scientific method itself.
Here is a list of Senate Committees that have something to do with research or science-related policymaking in this country and anyone on such a committee who has any grounding in science at all. I’m grasping at straws with some of these people, but here goes -
- Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation: One engineer (John Sununu, R-NH), One veterinarian (John Ensign, R-NV)
- Committee on Environment and Public Works: One batshit crazy global warming denier (Jim Inhofe, R-OK)
- Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: One doctor (Tom Coburn, R-OK), one veterinarian (Wayne Allard, R-CO)
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: One teacher (Daniel Akaka, D-HI)
- Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry: One organic farmer (Jon Tester, D-MT)
I’m not implying that this nation should be some sort of technocracy of scientists; such a system can easily fall out of touch with the average citizen and is the stuff of dystopian science fiction movies. I also realize that going into law and business are more or less natural routes into a political career and that it is pretty much inevitable that a large portion of not an outright majority of our lawmakers will have gone down this path.
However, ask yourself this – On a committee where the latest in scientific research and related policymaking is discussed on a daily basis, how confident do you feel that the right decisions will be made if the vast majority of the committee members probably could not even interpret a PubMed article on their own?
It would be reassuring if at least a few politicians on such a committee were able to interpret and disseminate scientific information provided to them like they are easily be able to do with issues of constitutionality, foreign policy, and general domestic policy. But in a nation where the current administration supports intelligent design, set us back six years on stem cell research to pander to the religious right, and still shows lingering doubts about the validity of anthropogenic global warming… maybe that’s too much to ask.
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Robin Zhang
- WTF @ Battlestar Galactica Finale!?
- Christian Sci-Fi: Rarer Than a Gay Black Republican.
- Al Franken to Win Senate Seat?
- Triangulation FTL: Right Wing Pastor Rick Warren to Lead Invocation
- Steven Baldwin Gets Punk’d By Two Local Radio Hosts
- A Sense of History
- My Election Predictions
- Fundamentalist Theatre 3000 BC – The Omega Code
- Tracy Kerlee is What’s Wrong About America
- Michele Bachmann – Fracked Up Congresswoman
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
The only thing I disagree with in your article is the negative use of “technocracy” since I have named a campaign to promote more science consultation “neo-technocracy.” From what i can tell, self-identified technocrats just wanted science to play a bigger political role. Which it seems, so do you.
The term “technocrat” seems to have spent the last 50 years as a replacement term for “robber-baron.”
Political scientists have carelessly embraced this term as a word to categorize wealthy industrialists who play major influential roles in politics. When the original technocrats, the ones who actually self-identified as technocrats, where a lot more like todays “futurists.”
I really liked your article, its just giving technocracy a good name is my schtick.
It is my schtick precisely because of all the arguments you have made.
unortunately, it might be too much to ask. i agree with you 100% though. It’s nice to bring in experts in the field you are discussing policy about. I’m sure it’s easy for people to try and put a business spin on the policy too if that’s all they know. let’s have some independent, knowledgeable inquiry!