> and instead is a leadership and reporting position. You're absolutely right in that the specific technical skills associated with having a PhD in, say, physi

> and instead is a leadership and reporting position. You're absolutely right in that the specific technical skills associated with having a PhD in, say, physics, or math, or even (heck) engineering have little to no bearing whatsoever on what the person at the top of the organization will do during their tenure. But there are more things learned during a PhD than a bunch of technical skills. You might learn something, e.g., about the very nature of scientific inquiry. About the nature of the challenges of collecting and analyzing scientific data. About explaining complicated research to a lay audience. About trying to convince higher-ups of the scientific merits of a project even when said merits are subtle. About why something qualifies as "science" while something else doesn't -- and knowing the difference between the two decidedly does matter when you're in a leadership position. "'Scientific discovery is not valuable unless it has commercial value,' John McDougall, president of the NRC." ... I don't think John Holdren would have said this. Indeed I think one would be hard pressed to find anyone with a PhD who would say this.