Scientists Make Lousy Policy Makers

The Global Security Newswire notes that some people are concerned that there are not enough scientists working for congressional panels these days. As a result, lawmakers may not be receiving the necessary scientific information to make key decisions. This could explain, in a way, how Congress overlooked the really horrible EPA/FDA/CDC/NASA decisions made by the Bush administration over the past eight years. But I kid. This article is more focused on arms control issues.

Science converges with nonproliferation in various fashions, panelists said.

"Scientists in government and international organizations provide input in the bureaucratic process of developing policy positions," said Pierce Corden, holder of a physics doctorate and a veteran arms control official at the U.S. and international levels. "They then contribute to the diplomatic negotiating process, translating positions into agreements.

"Once negotiated, scientists support verification and implementation through national technical means and international monitoring mechanisms," he added.

Corden described science as a method for analyzing and synthesizing information on a problem so that it can be placed in a larger construct. Science seeks to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant information, he said: "It's a process of carefully thinking about an issue."

Practitioners have expertise that has been used in both sides of the weapons equation -- physics has contributed to nuclear weapons programs and to civilian nuclear energy, chemists helped to produce the compounds used in chemical weapons and biologists have offered greater understanding and countermeasures for viruses and bacteria that could be used as terrorist weapons.
---------
Panelists appeared to differ on whether more scientists such as Energy Secretary Steven Chu are needed in policy-making roles.

"Not particularly. I think for administrative positions you want administrators. You want policy-makers," said Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund. Those officials, though, must be willing to reach out to scientists for assessments of threats and their possible solutions, he added.

Argued Levine: "I do think that there should be more scientists in policy-making positions. Not that they should dominate it, but ... there should be a salting of scientists mixing in with the rest of us. Because we don't always hear correctly when the scientists are speaking to us."

Joe's right on target here. Policy-makers often use the excuse of daunting technical challenges to avoid making decisions on important policy issues, and that's not right. As a result, one often gets technical experts involved in making - or recommending - policy solutions where they are not trained or experienced enough to make such recommendations. Scientists and engineers are good at executing policy, but not making it. They don't know what they don't know, and then you get really bad policy execution - like Project BioWatch, like the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, like the Army's chemical demil program - where the programs continue to fail to meet their objectives because policy makers refuse to make tough decisions.

Technicians should advise policy makers on options and on metrics that will allow the effective adjudication of said programs. But only a few exceptional scientists, those who demonstrate the ability to understand the nuances and challenges of national policy issues, ought to be selected to become policy-makers.

UPDATE: To be crystal clear, US policy making is very often disfunctional. That's the norm today. There are numerous examples of bad policy making where scientific advice was either not solicited or deliberately disregarded. The key for scientists who want to be good policy makers is to understand that logic is a variable, but not the most important one, in this process.

“This is true. There is little rationality in the political process. I’ve learned firsthand, what for years Rep. Brown tried to instill in the scientific community. If you are going to interact in a political environment, you have to know the reasoning and context of the people you are dealing with. Different stakeholders are driven by different perspectives. For example, a scientist and a politician are usually not motivated by the same circumstances or for the same reasons.”

I apologize if my artless communication has failed to make this point.

Comments

[Cheryl Rofer]

Excuse me! Other policy advisors don't have their own agendas????

I'll agree that when scientists give advice and label it science, they should be careful to keep it (mostly) science. But what happens when the science leads you to a conclusion that you think is really, really important?

Plus misunderstandings of the science by the policymakers and those who report on the process. Plus "misunderstandings" by those same folks who may find their politics at odds with reality and need someone to blame or misquote.

[J.]

Argh. I didn't meant to imply that policy-makers are incapable of twisting scientific advice or creating agendas that ignore science-based information. Certainly that happens. But I would refer you to Charles Jones "An Intro to the Study of Public Policy" where he outlines the interactions of policy-makers, technicians, politicians, and the public. He has more than enough examples of how these four groups have their strengths and weaknesses. And the fact is, technical experts who execute policy are generally not very good at understanding broad policy issues to the point of making good policy.

And not to stir the pot further, but I've found few scientists who made good managers (at least in govt). Seems like they want to get promoted because only so far you can go in a lab, so they go into management, but they really aren't prepared with the right people skills.

[Cheryl Rofer]

I haven't read the Jones study, just a couple of other comments along the same lines - that scientists are such dopes that they can't distinguish their opinion from reality or are (horrors!) giving political advice that includes opinion. So I was ready to drop this comment somewhere, and you gave me the opportunity!

The problem with any of these four groups is that within each group, some are naive, some are narrowly focused, some are dishonest, and some are actually quite balanced. The proportions of the downsides vary from group to group. I would guess that "naive" shows up the most among the scientists.

I'll agree that many scientists are poor managers. So are many politicians, and let's not talk about the financial wizards! Management is a particular set of skills and flexibilities combined with an ability to remain focused. Scientists tend to be narrowly focused and frequently not at all good in people skills. They see that the people people are frequently not focused (and thus not good managers) and overdo on the other side.

[Izzy Iscowitz]

I've decided that, for whatever reason, you just hate scientists. I've seen any number of posts where you decry scientists for asking for more research, for wanting to be involved in the policy process, and for, well, being human. If scientists didn't help to set research priorities, we'd have a semi-infinite budget for NIH (since all senators want to live forever and are, to first order, old white men). If scientists weren't involved in the policy process, we'd have funding for hafnium isomer bombs and inertial dampners and other violations of the laws of physics. And I know lots and lots of scientists (and am one myself) and first and foremost we're all human. Just like the policy makers and managers you tout. There are plenty of good managers and good policy makers who are scientists, and there are plenty of lousy managers and lousy policy makers who are not. Training in science doesn't guarantee that you're only good at science, just as training in political science, or public policy, or management, doesn't guarantee that you're going to be good at policy or management.

As Cheryl points out, everyone has an agenda, and to assume otherwise is a disservice to all involved.

It's hard enough to get scientists even remotely engaged in the policy process, and the generalizations you make don't help anyone.

[J.]

I love science, and I love scientists who have enough good sense to understand what they are good at, and 9 times out of ten, that's in a laboratory. There are lousy policy makers, lots of them, and usually that's because they don't understand the role they are supposed to play or the decisions they are supposed to make. And I'm pretty sure there *was* funding for hafnium isomer bombs, Sharon Weinberger wrote a book about it. Pretty sure that it was DARPA funding, which was headed by Dr. Tether... a scientist turned executive manager. Hmmmmmm.