Columnists
Bring on the scientists
We are living through a crisis. Thankfully, the mantra that has guided most Canadian politicians through it is to ‘follow the science.’ In stark contrast has been the response of Donald Trump, who has trusted his (rapidly expanding) gut, with disastrous consequences. Indeed, the coronavirus crisis has underscored the importance of a scientific approach to public problems. The next crisis—the environmental crisis—is already upon us, and it too requires us to listen to the science in order to respond intelligently.
So the logical question to ask is: are there enough scientists involved in government decision- making? And the answer seems to be a clear ‘no’. An article from last November in the iPolitics online journal analyzed the number of people in Parliament with primary Science, Technology, Engineering and Math post-secondary degrees, and came up with 21 of them. This compares to 48 MPs who have business degrees and 59 of them who have law degrees.
Mind you, we do have a Nobel prize winner in cabinet: Kirsty Duncan, a Toronto area MP, who is currently our Minister for Sports and Persons with Disabilities and was formerly our Minister for Science, worked along with Al Gore and others on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the 2007 peace prize.
What would more scientists bring to the table? First, if the way the science people respond to their daily questions on the national newscasts is anything to go by, they would bring forthrightness—something that is noticeably lacking when Justin Trudeau is determined, as he usually is, to stick to his talking points. Second, everything would have to be evidence- based; policies would be tested out in controlled, double blind studies and published in peer reviewed journals before being implemented. There would be no obfuscation about the facts. because of the need to replicate results. And third, scientists would bring unique observational, diagnostic and analytical skills, which businesspeople and lawyers aren’t trained to employ in the same way.
The authors of the iPolitics article put it this way: scientists bring an understanding of the scientific method, the limitations of experimentation and the uncertainties in our knowledge. They also bring a unique way of critical analysis and problem solving. They conclude that it is a good idea for more scientists to get involved in public life as it will aid in “growing and sustaining a culture of science, and increasing the diversity of intellectual approaches in Parliament.”
As to why there aren’t already more scientists involved in politics, the authors suggest the academic career path isn’t friendly to alternative careers, and that public policy issues are not valued in academia, perhaps because of the naive belief that ‘the science will speak for itself.
Nevertheless, I wonder how many scientists would actually find political careers rewarding.
The problem with taking on a political job is that politics is the art of the possible. Making political decisions involves reaching compromises that steer you away from principled decision-making. And after a while you become jaded by the constant pressures of compromise, and your scientific rigour begins to fade. You are probably better at that point to get out of politics to let some freshfaced idealist succeed you.
And then there is the small problem of getting elected. Voters are fickle. Bombarding them with dire warnings about the carbon emissions crisis and the need for a less consumptive lifestyle, however true, may not be what your voters want to hear. You can’t get too far in front of public sentiment, or you will lose your seat.
Yet as Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel showed us, coming from a science background doesn’t mean you aren’t qualified to be a leader. So I say, bring on the scientists, and let’s load up Parliament Hill with bunsen burners, test tubes and petrie dishes. Just beware that horse trading happens, and don’t stick around too long.
Next up, we might try to get more representation from professional prestidigitateurs, who can conjure up a solution to this little trillion dollar public debt problem we’ve got.
Comments (0)