mk isn't alone. The thought has crossed my mind as well, but I'll be sitting on my hands for at least two years while I finish getting pedigree'd.
There's a saying in Russia: "Нет худа без добра", meaning "There's no evil without [that doesn't also bring] good". I've read somewhere - I think it was Brian Eno's interview - that Trump's presidency stirs the bowl, making people get their shit together. If this is the result, then by all good and holy, I accept it. Best wishes to the scientists willing to contribute to the political progress of the country.
feel free to tag me in any post where this ever happens through the process we discussed above (a scientist gets elected to an important position, lands on the appropriations committee, prevents a decline in science funding OR introduces a pro-science bill that passes and wouldn't have passed except for his presence OR etc etc etc meanwhile t-cellspreventing idiotic congrescritters from getting in the way
Howard Dean was a Doctor. Bill Frist was a Physician and Majority Leader. Scientists? Close. I see your point with anti-intellectualism in politics, but your attitude towards this topic is shit.
Because it a silo'd, defeatist attitude and flag has repeatedly shown no interest in having real conversations on this place as of late. Just blasting a line or three of snark and moving on. To each their own.
I'm not judging you for being disappointed in flags. What bothers me is that you turn a solid reason for being disappointed into "your attitude is shit" which promotes nothing but reciprocal aggression because it's mere trashtalk, and this isn't the place for that.
Because it offers no possible solution, no support or encouragement, no real reasoning, it's just a "fuck you" in a few more words than that. Sorry I was much more up front with what I was trying to say?
Some of the most important scientists you've ever heard of, you've heard of because of their contributions to public policy. - Leo Szilard got Einstein to talk to Roosevelt, jump started the Manhattan Project and had a Red Phone installed in the White House to talk to the Kremlin. He was also responsible for conceptualizing the chain reaction and held, with Enrico Fermi, the first patent for a nuclear reactor. - Vannevar Bush invented the analog computer while he was busy starting up a little company called Raytheon while not busy teaching at MIT. Then WWII happened and he took some time off to head the office of strategic research and development, managing all miitary invention and therefore being indirectly responsible for radar, plastics, and atomic weaponry. He pretty much conceived of computers and the Internet in 1945 while busy heading what would become NASA. - Steven Chu has a nobel prize in physics for trapping atoms with lasers and also was the guy who got Obama to invest in solar power. "Doing science" means "getting science into the hands of society" and while some scientists suck at doing stuff with people, some rawk at it. My best friend's dad taught theoretical physics at Columbia. Was a big-time investigator. Then he got pissed off at environmental stuff back in the '70s and organized a protest against a coal plant. Then he discovered he had a knack for organization and making technical issues less technical. He was one of the top 3 guys at the SSC, the top guy at LIGO and is currently the top guy at the Thirty Meter Telescope. Let's say you want to study gravity waves. You need to convince someone to spend $620m to let you do so. First of all, you're not doing it alone. Second of all, there's gonna be someone between you and the politicians. We're now in a place where the politicians are actively anti-science. Might as well supplant their asses.
Not all scientists are going to run for office: only some of them, a small number compared to the scientific apparatus that the US bolsters if my understanding of the size of the Congress is anywhere near correct. Having even a few who'd advocate the interests of one of the most essential activities of humanity - scientific research - can't do any harm and will most likely improve the situation.
I don't consider myself "great", but the bar has never been set lower for public office. Maybe we should entertain the old Roman method of appointing our officials from a pool of folks who didn't ask to be politicians (and spend millions of dollars campaigning).