Would society be better if there were more scientists in positions of political power?

Justin Park

These days, it’s not an uncommon sentiment to view the government with more skepticism than ever before. No matter where you are on the political spectrum, it seems that everyone has issues with a politician or party. It’s no secret that the American people are becoming increasingly polarized, a phenomenon that coincides with a decades-long loss of public trust in the federal government; according to the Pew Research Center, the percentage of people who had confidence in the government to do what was right at least “most of the time” has dropped from 77% in 1964 to 22% in 2024 (Pew Research Center).

In these turbulent times, concerns have been raised regarding the decline of scientific thought in the modern political landscape. Examples are abundant; we are all familiar with the anti-vax movement during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the National Library of Medicine estimating that approximately 232,000 deaths were caused by a lack of vaccination in adults from May 2021 to September 2022 alone (Katherine Min Jia et al.). Equally concerning is the rise of the climate change denial movement, with current U.S. President Donald Trump expressing skepticism for the science-backed concept on numerous occasions. His opinions have significantly impacted government policy, resulting in the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and termination of Green New Deal programs, disrupting clean energy investments. As the consequences of uninformed voters and policymakers continue to reveal themselves, many have begun to wonder if it would not be better to put people who know what they are talking about in charge.

Scientists in political office are certainly not unprecedented throughout history. For instance, founding father Benjamin Franklin was renowned for his experiments with electricity. As the first Postmaster General of the United States, he went on to play a key role as a politician and diplomat during and after the American Revolution. However, it is important to note that Franklin’s political achievements had little to do with scientific studies, which had few practical applications at the time and served more to bolster his public reputation than anything else. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is another example. As a former research chemist, she was—at least in theory—a proponent of climate change research, and argued for government funding of scientific endeavors; however in practice, she implemented budget cuts that strained government and university research programs, and went on to become one of the most controversial prime ministers in recent history for her choices regarding domestic and foreign policy.

Franklin and Thatcher’s stories mirror those of scientists as a whole; their studies tend to have limited, definitively positive impact on their political careers, if they have political careers at all. Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Marie Curie, Nikola Tesla, Charles Darwin, and Alexander Graham Bell are all renowned scientists revered in their field, but none are remembered as great statesmen or policymakers, and for good reason: because they weren’t. Historically, scientists with significant experience in research and innovation tend to have negligible political impact compared to contemporary office-holders. Most don’t desire to be politicians at all; Albert Einstein famously turned down the presidency of Israel when offered it in 1952 (Dubey).

One tempting argument in favor of the scientists is that the analytical thinking used in their studies might become useful in directing policy. Not only are these claims difficult to prove in any definitive capacity, but there are many cases where they might be credibly refuted. Take Swedish inventor Alfred Nobel, famous for the prestigious Nobel prizes awarded in his name for physics, chemistry, literature, and other fields, less well-known for his invention of multiple explosives. Two of his most notable patents were dynamite and the smokeless gunpowder ballistite. Nobel developed the explosives partially for peaceful construction purposes, but also to use their destructive power to deter military conflict, stating that “on the day that two army corps can mutually annihilate each other in a second, all civilised nations will surely recoil with horror and disband their troops” (Tägil). In practice, the opposite happened; the Italian Army incorporated ballistite into its rifles, and dynamite was used frequently by both sides in the Franco-Prussian War, to deadly effect. While he had good intentions and had the skills to develop his inventions into stunning successes, Nobel grossly misjudged both the military implications of his actions and the fundamental nature of deterrence. His example serves as a case study that highlights how scientific prowess does not necessarily translate into effective understanding of how governments and nations function.

And perhaps most glaringly, being a scientist does not suggest that one has the best interests of the public in mind. Look to Thomas Edison, often credited as the inventor of the lightbulb who clashed with his rival Nikola Tesla. Despite his scientific achievements, it is difficult to ignore his other faults; he was known for cutthroat and predatory business practices, and publicly electrocuted animals with Tesla’s inventions on multiple occasions in attempts to discredit him and “prove” their dangerous nature. In recent years, even his creation of the lightbulb has come under scrutiny, with many noting the arguably greater contributions of previous inventors. This brings up an interesting question: what is a scientist? How much experience should they have to be considered one? Do engineers count? Those who only did research in their university years? What about Sigmund Freud? He was seen as a premier psychologist in his time, but has since been disproven by modern psychologists, which introduces a further complication: science is not always correct. It is constantly refined, and its definition shifts with time. The shift in Freud’s image from cutting-edge expert in the past to something closer to a pseudoscientific crackpot today makes it evident that since “scientists” are not infallible nor defined by a rigid and constant definition, the question of whether they would make better politicians becomes a moot point.

All these historical examples seem to suggest a common theme: science and politics are very different and very incompatible fields. While the image of a crisp lab coat carries a greater air of intellectualism and competence compared to the polarizing politicians of today, closer inspection reveals that faults and flaws are just as prevalent in scientists compared to everyone else. And this, unsurprisingly, is natural. Scientists at their core are experts in finding the truth about our world, not applying the solutions to our problems on a societal scale. It is important to remember that scientists are not any less valuable for this, and in fact with challenges such as climate change and pollution looming over the modern world, they are actually more vital than ever; but our focus should remain on instating the best public officials to utilize their findings, so they can concentrate on doing their own job.

Works Cited

Dubey, Anna. “The Time Albert Einstein Was Asked to Be President of Israel | Britannica.” Www.britannica.com, www.britannica.com/story/the-time-albert-einstein-was-asked-to-be-president-of-israel.

Katherine Min Jia, et al. “Estimated Preventable COVID-19-Associated Deaths due to Non-Vaccination in the United States.” European Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 38, no. 11, Springer Science+Business Media, Apr. 2023, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-023-01 006-3.

Pew Research Center. “Public Trust in Government: 1958-2024.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 24 June 2024, www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/public-trust-in -government-1958-2024/.

Tägil, Sven. “Alfred Nobel’s Thoughts about War and Peace.” NobelPrize.org, 20 Nov. 1998, www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/alfred-nobels-thoughts-about-war-and-peace/.