4 ms·

> President Donald Trump has yet to name a science adviser, leading some to declare that Fox News is filling the position. This is petty drivel, from the point

> President Donald Trump has yet to name a science adviser, leading some to declare that Fox News is filling the position. This is petty drivel, from the pointless and nonsensical jabs, to the bizarre assumption that PhDs make better politicians.

tsomctl 9y ago
I don't think it's bizarre to assume that a PhD is best to be a science adviser.
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  Only in the sense that PhDs are often extremely specialized. They are experts in one field, not general-purpose "science" experts. It may not be immediately clear why someone with the most advanced knowledge in the world on an esoteric organism in Indonesia would be a good advisor to the President. A PhD functioning as an advisor does have valuable experience that would help them understand how some desired research needs to get done, or discern whether a particular study is quality or junk, or be able to communicate effectively in an environment full of technical jargon. Indeed, those are the characteristics that are really needed - but those are merely qualities that are hopefully picked up on the way to a PhD, not the research project which the PhD certifies.
  - soVeryTired 9y ago
    A PhD alone wouldn't necessarily make a good scientific advisor, but someone who came from a high-level position in a university might. Beyond a certain level, scientists become managers rather than practitioners. The successful ones have insight into the process of raising funds, the politics of large-scale research facilities, and sometimes the process of major international collaboration. Discerning whether a given study is junk probably doesn't fall under the remit of Science Advisor. That's more of a tactical issue that would be delegated to a specialist policy wonk.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  I don't think I said that. The article is about "scientists" running for political office, not applying as advisors.
enraged_camel 9y ago
Advisers are not politicians. They are (supposed to be) subject matter experts who inform policy-makers on complex topics. From this perspective, PhDs would on average make better science advisers than your average person. edit: lol @ downvotes

tsomctl 9y ago

I don't think it's bizarre to assume that a PhD is best to be a science adviser.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago
Only in the sense that PhDs are often extremely specialized. They are experts in one field, not general-purpose "science" experts. It may not be immediately clear why someone with the most advanced knowledge in the world on an esoteric organism in Indonesia would be a good advisor to the President. A PhD functioning as an advisor does have valuable experience that would help them understand how some desired research needs to get done, or discern whether a particular study is quality or junk, or be able to communicate effectively in an environment full of technical jargon. Indeed, those are the characteristics that are really needed - but those are merely qualities that are hopefully picked up on the way to a PhD, not the research project which the PhD certifies.
- soVeryTired 9y ago
  A PhD alone wouldn't necessarily make a good scientific advisor, but someone who came from a high-level position in a university might. Beyond a certain level, scientists become managers rather than practitioners. The successful ones have insight into the process of raising funds, the politics of large-scale research facilities, and sometimes the process of major international collaboration. Discerning whether a given study is junk probably doesn't fall under the remit of Science Advisor. That's more of a tactical issue that would be delegated to a specialist policy wonk.
microcolonel 9y ago
I don't think I said that. The article is about "scientists" running for political office, not applying as advisors.

enraged_camel 9y ago

Advisers are not politicians. They are (supposed to be) subject matter experts who inform policy-makers on complex topics. From this perspective, PhDs would on average make better science advisers than your average person. edit: lol @ downvotes