Why We Need Fewer Politicians in Politics
By: Sol Kochi Carballo
Tags: Environment, Politics, STEM, Stem Education, Advocacy

Why We Need Fewer Politicians in Politics

In today’s world, science is political.

Source: created by the author via Canva

As court battles dwindle there are signs the 2021 US election is finally coming to an end. In many ways, this has been an election unlike any other, framed by the context of a global pandemic, a climate emergency, and unprecedented technological change. These issues were at the front and centre of campaigns, debates, and discussions — yet the more I watched and read, the clearer it became that a large majority of politicians lack any sort of scientific background.

Indeed, aside from COVID-19 and climate change, science policy appears to be missing from campaigns, debates, and party platforms. Even when these issues are discussed, they’re talked about in a very human-centric way. The focus is always on the economy first, society second, and the environment third.

Is this surprising? Not quite. In 2017 there were just two members of Congress with PhDs in a Science, Technology, Engineering or Mathematics (STEM) related field. On the contrary, 222 held Law degrees and a further 18 held only a high school diploma. Considering the lack of scientists in politics it is hardly shocking scientific interests are underrepresented.

It is worth noting that this is not a US-centric problem. In 2016 Australia’s federal parliament had only 20 politicians with STEM training — that’s just 12% of senators and 7% of MPs. In the UK, the most popular subjects for MPs who won seats in the December 2019 election include Politics (20%), History (13%), and Law (12%).

Career politicians are important, and many of them do great work. I am not arguing that every political institution should consist entirely of scientists, nor am I saying that the arts are an inferior background in any way.

Rather, I believe that in a society that trusts and needs science more than ever one must question why so few of our decision-makers come from a STEM or STEM-related field. Likewise, we must ask ourselves how we can fix this gap, and what scientists could bring to public policy and all levels of government.

The need for change

Around the world, scientists are becoming increasingly alarmed at the ignorance, apathy, and indifference of political leaders towards urgent issues.

In South America, 2019 saw Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro fire the head of the National Institute for Space Research. This followed tensions over one of the agency’s reports which stated that deforestation in the Amazon had gotten worse since his time in power. In Hungary, the government overtook around 40 institutes previously ran under the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. In my home of sunny Australia, Environmental Science degrees have suffered funding cuts of almost 30%, a move that is predicted to harm the country’s ability to deal with drought, bushfires, coral bleaching, and global warming.

On the other side of the planet, it is no secret that White House scientists and Donald Trump have clashed on more than a few occasions. Trump has publicly supported Andrew Wakefield, a British gastroenterologist who is now infamous for his 1998 study linking the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine to autism. Even though the Lancet retracted his paper, Trump allegedly told him ‘I’m gonna do something about this because I know it happened, I’ve seen it in people who worked with me and their children’. Furthermore, research suggests Trump Tweets may increase anti-vax attitudes.

Likewise, in his time in office Trump has delayed nominating a scientific advisor, withdrew the US from the Paris agreement, and proposed cutting the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by 25%.

Clearly, our leadership must change if we are to have any chance of surviving the climate emergency. If anything, the wide and vocal support for the March for Science — an international series of Earth Day rallies and marches — proves that the people want effective and proactive leadership in the fight against climate change.

Why are scientists generally on the sidelines?

The answer is simple — scientists don’t typically run for office.

There are a couple of surface explanations for this. Firstly, individuals with STEM degrees may find it difficult to get noticed by parties due to a lack of connections and contacts within the political sphere. Likewise, many may find the notion of science as a pure and objective pursuit of truth an inherent opposition to the world of politics, which is often based on subjectivity.

Still, there is a deeper, perhaps more troubling cause for the lack of scientific voices in government: a struggle to communicate effectively.

Aside from a few noteworthy personalities such as David Attenborough, Bill Nye, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, scientists are rarely in the limelight. Those who become household names are the exception rather than the rule. In fact, research suggests most Americans can’t name a living scientist. Admittedly, scientists themselves are partially to blame.

The uncomfortable truth is that despite the advent of the internet, science remains inaccessible to a significant number of people. Scientists, intelligent as they are, sometimes struggle to communicate their findings in a way that makes sense to the general public. At worst, this leads to the spread of misinformation, fake news, and confusion over what is and isn’t a fact. To illustrate, there are widespread misbeliefs regarding topics such as climate change, vaccines, and evolution. Is part of this due to a refusal to listen? Sure, but it is also due to a struggle to communicate.

To make matters worse these communication problems are exacerbated through the inaccurate and stereotypical portrayals of scientists in the media. Whether it be in TV shows, movies, or books, scientists are often categorised as eccentric and antisocial at best and ‘mad’ and egotistical at worst — not necessarily qualities we would want in our leaders, are they?

Lastly, we must of course consider that it takes decades to become a respected scientist and build a career as a scholar. Unlike academia, politics does not provide a great deal of stability. It remains uncertain how one might leave behind the laboratory and enter the world of politics knowing that the stint could last four years or less, especially since entering politics is more or less a death sentence for said science career.

What scientists can offer

Representation of scientific interests

Whether for better or for worse, science is political. From the Institute of Health and Welfare to the Department of Energy to the Department of Conservation, much of scientific research is funded by the government. Every day politicians make decisions regarding where to spend public money. One might choose to spend money on defense rather than a space exploration mission, for example. As such, deciding what gets funding — and subsequently what doesn’t — is a political decision, not a scientific one. For some, the idea that public money should fund any research is political.

This brings me to my next point — perhaps the most obvious way in which scientists can further the interests of society is by advocating for funding. This is especially important at a time where science is becoming undervalued. Data shows we are not even representing our interests well. The UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimates Australia’s R&D spending as a percentage of GDP is approximately 2.2%. In America and the UK, this totals 2.7% and 1.7% accordingly. Contrastingly, Finland, Japan, and South Korea spend 3.2%, 3.4% and 4.3% of their GDP on R&D.

Furthermore, scientists bring a unique perspective to the political arena. Unlike some politicians, scientists understand the inherent importance of basic research. In addition, they also understand how patents, regulations, and other barriers to entry stifle and encourage competition and innovation. Scientists can often bring a more holistic approach to policymaking as they understand how budget cuts and funding can make important projects more or less likely to succeed.

Objectivity

Being a voice in favour of funding is not the only benefit scientists can bring to politics. In their day-to-day work, scientists usually rely on evidence and data to analyse the significance, methodology, and conclusions of their work. They are also naturally inquisitive, always interrogating the question and asking ‘why’. Adversely, many career politicians fail to consider all the evidence before making important decisions. If enough scientists take the leap into politics and bring with them these transferable skills, they have the potential to change these dangerous thinking patterns. In the real world, this translates to less wasteful spending and more effective public policy.

Trust

In a disturbing trend, democracies are losing the trust of their citizens. The Edelman Trust Barometer is an annual study that measures the level of trust in institutions across the world. The 2020 report reveals the public across 28 countries has low confidence in government and media, with businesses and non-governmental organisations doing only a little bit better.

In contrast, and perhaps due to the aforementioned objectivity, over 80% of people trust scientists. Bringing more scientists into the political system may just be the key to stop the erosion of trust and create stronger democracies.

Final remarks

Scientists in politics can form the basis for stronger evidence-based leadership. A more diversified government is crucial in the context of technological disruption, global warming, and COVID-19. After all, by pushing a science agenda, providing objectivity, and increasing trust, scientists have the power to unite societies and change the world.