Why don't more scientists enter politics?

This is a question posed by Shaun over at The Trenches of Discovery, in a piece I would urge you to read. He argues that scientists are not shy of expressing opinions on matters of political interest, and scientists are well-qualified (some would say better qualified than most) to offer opinions on, and to frame, policies on matters of great importance to society. So why are they under-represented in politics?

I found this a bit of a thought-provoking question. As readers will have noticed, this particular science blog is not backward in expressing political opinions, so some sort of considered response appears to be in order. If you click through to Shaun's post you can see some of my immediate reactions in the comments; however, while I am happy to shoot from the hip over at his blog, I will try to express myself more coherently and thoughtfully on my own.

The first point I would make is that the premise that scientists are under-represented in politics only holds true for certain definitions of what constitutes 'politics'. At the end of his post Shaun exhorts scientists with political opinions to join a political party that best represents those opinions, attend meetings of local branches of this party and to make a difference to arguments about policy. This sounds like grassroots political involvement in a local community, in an attempt to address the issues affecting that constituency, to run certain organisations for the benefit of the community. And I agree that that is precisely the essence of 'politics': to persuade the members of a community to place you in a position to administrate communal or collective institutions for the overall benefit of that community.

Now, the community you represent may be your local village co-operative or church, your neighbourhood in the city council, or people concerned about, say, the environment in your local political party. But as a scientist (or indeed as someone in any other academic field), your community could also be your college or university, or your department within the university, or the student body at the departmental board. The issues you are concerned about and the institutions you work to improve may be the collection of household rubbish, the maintenance of roads and the care of the elderly, but they could also be the operation of the college library, the quality of food in the staff canteen, or the allocation of research grants in your country. I think deciding policy for a national research council, or working on the board of a multi-national radio telescope project, or becoming dean of your university, fits just as well with this broader definition of 'politics' as does being elected to a local government office. And I don't think anyone would argue that scientists are under-represented in these roles.

On a larger national scale, scientists are clearly also actively involved behind the scenes in advocating and affecting policy. This may be through working as advisors to governments, or through roles in particular think-tanks or committees, or merely through making intelligent contributions to the sum of the national debate on relevant topics. This is generally the way that not just scientists but experts from all fields (including economists and social scientists) contribute to policy. I don't think scientists are under-represented in these roles — at least once one takes into account the fact that issues of public policy importance are usually more concerned with economics, crime, medical care and so on than issues of science in particular.

What may well be true though is that scientists are under-represented in national parliaments, ministerial positions, as prime ministers or presidents of countries. Shaun points out that only one member of the British House of Commons is (or was) a scientist, but very many have been lawyers or journalists, or have worked in PR. By this definition of 'being involved in politics,' I concede that scientists are rather thin on the ground.

However, I'm not sure this is particularly surprising. Given that the primary role of legislatures is to draft laws, one might argue that in fact rather more trained lawyers were required in the British parliament, and might have avoided some of the ambiguously or poorly framed laws they have passed recently. More generally, to be elected to some national-level public office requires a certain set of skills and certain experience, to be a scientist requires different skills and different experience. In democratic electoral systems the primary determinant of the success of an elected politician is really not their ability to frame and implement coherent and considered evidence-based policies for the long-term benefit of society, but the ability to manipulate public debate to defend whatever policies they are identified with and attack the policies their opponents are identified with. You could call this propaganda, economy with the truth, or simply lies. Whatever you call it though, it is clear that a prior career in PR, advertising, or journalism is far better at preparing someone to anticipate, react to, and shape public opinion than a career in science.

(This is not to argue that the skills possessed by scientists would not be useful for people in decision-making posts to possess, just that they would not be very useful in getting them elected to those posts in the first place.)

Beyond that, in most democratic systems, loyalty to a unified party line is important to further one's career prospects as a politician. So is building coalitions and winning support from other, competing politicians. This involves compromises with the idea of fact-based judgement of policy, as demonstrated every time a British Liberal Democrat MP grits their teeth and reaffirms their belief that austerity is helping rather than hurting the economy. Of course scientists may not be unique in their distaste for such behaviour, but their career training in the use of statistical analysis of data and the construction of arguments based on actual evidence should make it more difficult for them to deceive themselves. Certainly any scientist worth the name, if active in a political party, should take a vocal stand against the abuse or misrepresentation of data, even if deployed in the interests of their party. To do so will, however, almost certainly be detrimental to their political prospects.

In fact I'm not even sure whether it is desirable for us to have more scientists in politics, if by 'in politics' I restrict myself to meaning 'elected to parliament'. Surely the value of scientific contributions to policy debates comes from their expert knowledge coupled with a sort of guarantee of independence of thought and standards of evidence? Of what use is the opinion of a scientist who is tainted by their involvement in the puerile, partisan, mud-slinging environment of everyday party politics?

So in the end, I will disagree with Shaun: if you are a scientist who is interested in political issues and wishes to make a meaningful contribution to policy debates, you should perhaps consider whether there are better ways of doing it than by joining a political party. Recognise the skills that your scientific training has given you, and make the best use of them. It might be a waste of those skills to attempt to follow a career where they are either not required or actively unhelpful.