4 ms·

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.