4 ms·

People keep saying "We need more scientists in government", but I think that trying to make that happen is running into a brick wall: those scientists will also

People keep saying "We need more scientists in government", but I think that trying to make that happen is running into a brick wall: those scientists will also need to be lawyers and there just aren't that many people who are competently both. Without an understanding of the law, they'll end up drafting laws without basic things like mens rea requirements. We live in a highly specialized world; Can anyone here can butcher a hog, design a building, and plan an invasion with a rock-solid level of competence? No. So stop looking for a unicorn who is able to: * Sell themselves to a wide and fickle audience of stangers * Manage a campaign staff * Understand problems in the context of history * Read and write legislation in a way that avoids unintended consequences or misaligned incentives * Negotiate against people with whom they have fundamental philosophical differences * Complete a PhD program in science or engineering That last one isn't necessary for our actual goal... and it doesn't even help when you consider that this person will also need to be an expert on military grand strategy, healthcare administration, procurement, urban design, and agriculture. We don't need a congress full of subject-matter experts. What we need are people who respect and can work effectively with subject-matter experts. So what is it that Senator Ron Wyden and Judge Aslup do that others should copy?

Jedi72 8y ago
I would be happy with a politician who can accomplish even one of these things.
- chopin 8y ago
  I'll take the first two for granted. Otherwise they wouldn't be in charge, isn't it?
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    * Sell themselves to a wide and fickle audience of stangers * Manage a campaign staff It is not necessary that politicians can do either / both, it is just that they appear to be the least worst option for at least a brief moment in the past. I'm often reminded of that single panel comic where small child says "Dad, I'm considering a career in organised crime" and the father, holding a news paper, says "Government or private sector?".
walterbell 8y ago
What could someone like Pam Samuelson contribute, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Samuelson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Samuelson?
oldcynic 8y ago
Need to be lawyers? Vast numbers of politicians nowadays have done nothing but be a professional politician. Many were lobbyists, or in PR before politics. In the UK under 15% have done any law. Not sure about Australia. The key point is really only "Sell themselves to a wide and fickle audience of strangers" That's really the only skill our unicorn needs to stand for and win election. The policy or manifesto is set in party HQ outside of scientific or any other expert advice or specialist knowledge. In the hope it'll win votes. Then a series of staged interviews, sound bites and dog whistles seek to move the Overton window to their policy and preferred direction of travel. Nothing to do with competence, truth, Civil Service advice or the presence or otherwise of a PhD in the Ministry. Politicians get promoted and senior roles because of ability to control a debate, and their media friendly features and abilities. The better laws on the books often come from hard won experience, case law and Select Committee recommendations. Those tend not to be the laws of policy headlines, manifestos and high profile Ministry interviews. Hence we get ridiculous policies and political grandstanding on a whole range of topics. Climate change and Brexit being just two examples where fact and consensus are irrelevant.
caf 8y ago
Government members don't need to be expert legislative drafters. They have career public servants who are specialists in drafting legislation to work with them on writing legislation that faithfully implements their policies (eg. in Australia, the subject of the article, there is the Office of Parliamentary Counsel).
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
Politicians, at least in the US, are not he ones that write the laws. They have teams of aids that are given direction and then do that for them. In other cases laws can even be written by private firms and our politicians then have their teams look over it. Politicians spend the vast majority of their time fund raising for their next election. Though maybe a more fundamental point is that our legal system is quite broken. The legalese is intended to ensure clarity, yet when it results in a system where fewer people than ever have any clue about what the law actually says, in anything beyond the most broad meaningless strokes, one must wonder whether it has actually achieved its purpose or not.
Silhouette 8y ago
We don't need a congress full of subject-matter experts. What we need are people who respect and can work effectively with subject-matter experts. I agree with the spirit of this argument, but there is a clear downside to not giving subject matter experts a vote at all. Ultimately there is then nothing to stop political expediency overriding facts and understanding, and the elected representatives are free to discard the opinions of the SMEs no matter how valid or correct they might be. Obviously most representatives still couldn't be true experts all the different subjects that lawmakers vote on. You'd only ever have a limited number of representatives who were voting fully informed on any given issue. Still, at least that number would be greater than zero, and if you're a politician voting for a "health" law that 100% of the qualified medical practitioners among your colleagues are voting against on the same record, that tells everyone something.
- mmt 8y ago
  > Ultimately there is then nothing to stop political expediency overriding facts and understanding, and the elected representatives are free to discard the opinions of the SMEs no matter how valid or correct they might be. Sadly, I've "seen" this (first- and second-hand) happen even with private-sector managers. When it happens to me, I always wonder, why did they bother to hire us (relatively expensive) experts in the first place? I've heard tell on HN of "engineering first" company cultures where decisions are supposedly made based (exclusively, when possible) on objective criteria, but I have yet to see it at companies above a certain size.
jacques_chester 8y ago
You created a bit of a false dichotomy here. In practice a parliamentary body needs a mix of competencies, rather than a monoculture of law students turned political staffers turned politicians. > We don't need a congress full of subject-matter experts. What we need are people who respect and can work effectively with subject-matter experts. In practice, you need experts inside the tent. There is a trust gradient in politics, with a sharp drop-off for anyone "outside" of the party room. Especially if one side picks up an issue and uses that expertise to bash the other side. In that situation their opponent can either beat a retreat (followed by triumphalism) or they can deny the expertise. Especially if you don't trust the motives of the experts. This is less likely to happen if all sides are seeded with expertise. Banning CFCs is the best example of this dynamic. Reagan didn't understand the problem and it went against his policy instincts. But without the USA's involvement, any ban was pointless. It was Thatcher -- someone nearby on the trust gradient, with a background in chemistry -- who convinced Reagan that it was a real problem. He still didn't understand it, but he had a trusted source to rely on.

Jedi72 8y ago

I would be happy with a politician who can accomplish even one of these things.

chopin 8y ago
I'll take the first two for granted. Otherwise they wouldn't be in charge, isn't it?
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  * Sell themselves to a wide and fickle audience of stangers * Manage a campaign staff It is not necessary that politicians can do either / both, it is just that they appear to be the least worst option for at least a brief moment in the past. I'm often reminded of that single panel comic where small child says "Dad, I'm considering a career in organised crime" and the father, holding a news paper, says "Government or private sector?".

walterbell 8y ago

What could someone like Pam Samuelson contribute, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Samuelson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Samuelson?

oldcynic 8y ago

Need to be lawyers? Vast numbers of politicians nowadays have done nothing but be a professional politician. Many were lobbyists, or in PR before politics. In the UK under 15% have done any law. Not sure about Australia. The key point is really only "Sell themselves to a wide and fickle audience of strangers" That's really the only skill our unicorn needs to stand for and win election. The policy or manifesto is set in party HQ outside of scientific or any other expert advice or specialist knowledge. In the hope it'll win votes. Then a series of staged interviews, sound bites and dog whistles seek to move the Overton window to their policy and preferred direction of travel. Nothing to do with competence, truth, Civil Service advice or the presence or otherwise of a PhD in the Ministry. Politicians get promoted and senior roles because of ability to control a debate, and their media friendly features and abilities. The better laws on the books often come from hard won experience, case law and Select Committee recommendations. Those tend not to be the laws of policy headlines, manifestos and high profile Ministry interviews. Hence we get ridiculous policies and political grandstanding on a whole range of topics. Climate change and Brexit being just two examples where fact and consensus are irrelevant.

caf 8y ago

Government members don't need to be expert legislative drafters. They have career public servants who are specialists in drafting legislation to work with them on writing legislation that faithfully implements their policies (eg. in Australia, the subject of the article, there is the Office of Parliamentary Counsel).

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

Politicians, at least in the US, are not he ones that write the laws. They have teams of aids that are given direction and then do that for them. In other cases laws can even be written by private firms and our politicians then have their teams look over it. Politicians spend the vast majority of their time fund raising for their next election. Though maybe a more fundamental point is that our legal system is quite broken. The legalese is intended to ensure clarity, yet when it results in a system where fewer people than ever have any clue about what the law actually says, in anything beyond the most broad meaningless strokes, one must wonder whether it has actually achieved its purpose or not.

Silhouette 8y ago

We don't need a congress full of subject-matter experts. What we need are people who respect and can work effectively with subject-matter experts. I agree with the spirit of this argument, but there is a clear downside to not giving subject matter experts a vote at all. Ultimately there is then nothing to stop political expediency overriding facts and understanding, and the elected representatives are free to discard the opinions of the SMEs no matter how valid or correct they might be. Obviously most representatives still couldn't be true experts all the different subjects that lawmakers vote on. You'd only ever have a limited number of representatives who were voting fully informed on any given issue. Still, at least that number would be greater than zero, and if you're a politician voting for a "health" law that 100% of the qualified medical practitioners among your colleagues are voting against on the same record, that tells everyone something.

mmt 8y ago
> Ultimately there is then nothing to stop political expediency overriding facts and understanding, and the elected representatives are free to discard the opinions of the SMEs no matter how valid or correct they might be. Sadly, I've "seen" this (first- and second-hand) happen even with private-sector managers. When it happens to me, I always wonder, why did they bother to hire us (relatively expensive) experts in the first place? I've heard tell on HN of "engineering first" company cultures where decisions are supposedly made based (exclusively, when possible) on objective criteria, but I have yet to see it at companies above a certain size.

jacques_chester 8y ago

You created a bit of a false dichotomy here. In practice a parliamentary body needs a mix of competencies, rather than a monoculture of law students turned political staffers turned politicians. > We don't need a congress full of subject-matter experts. What we need are people who respect and can work effectively with subject-matter experts. In practice, you need experts inside the tent. There is a trust gradient in politics, with a sharp drop-off for anyone "outside" of the party room. Especially if one side picks up an issue and uses that expertise to bash the other side. In that situation their opponent can either beat a retreat (followed by triumphalism) or they can deny the expertise. Especially if you don't trust the motives of the experts. This is less likely to happen if all sides are seeded with expertise. Banning CFCs is the best example of this dynamic. Reagan didn't understand the problem and it went against his policy instincts. But without the USA's involvement, any ban was pointless. It was Thatcher -- someone nearby on the trust gradient, with a background in chemistry -- who convinced Reagan that it was a real problem. He still didn't understand it, but he had a trusted source to rely on.