As a scientist, a common lament I hear from my colleagues is that there aren’t enough scientists in politics. Although there are some who’ve made it to the top – Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Claudia Sheinbaum – we’re underrepresented compared to other professions like lawyers or businesspeople.
Personally, I don’t think that scientists are particularly well suited to making political decisions. I’ve seen too many of my colleagues, while high achieving in their field, express opinions about politics or economics that were as misinformed as that of the average Uber driver. Worse, scientists aren’t any more likely than other partisans to admit the possibility that their political views may be wrong, even though doubt is supposed to be their stock in trade.
Achievement in one field, whether in science or elsewhere, is a poor predictor of success in other fields. That’s especially true for those who have achieved success through deliberate practice, such as artists or athletes:
When Roger Federer returns a service, he is not demonstrating sharper reactions than you and I; what he is showing is that he can extract more information from the service action of his opponent and other visual clues, enabling him to move into position earlier and more efficiently than the rest of us, which, in turn, allows him to make the return.
Matthew Syed: Bounce
While everyone agrees that Federer isn’t only a tennis genius but also a humble and decent man – I’ve shortly met him myself and I can confirm this – there’s nothing to suggest that his opinions on topics unrelated to tennis should be listened to more than anyone else’s. The same goes for chess grandmasters, business leaders or scientists.
Nehaveigur 