Are two cultures a bad thing?

Rather than designating some highly educated class, such as scientists, as the only ones fit to lead, would it not be better to reform education (and, yes, develop educational technology) so that every member of the public who wishes it can obtain sufficiently advanced education? Democracy relies upon an educated public making informed decisions about their self-interest. A public that is unable to competently make such decisions is more of a threat to democracy than any would-be conqueror.

This would, of course, require something rather different from teaching the sciences as they are taught today. Perhaps the government should hire neutral interpreters, who could digest complex issues and phrase the pros and cons in a manner the public can understand? Some would argue that this would essentially be spending government money on behalf of the technologists, as they are usually less able to clearly state their case than the public-friendly - if often factually-challenged - anti-technology groups. However, better public understanding would seem to be worth that cost, especially since it would focus opposition on any truly awful propositions that come along, rather than critics arguing against any complex change simply because it is complex, and perhaps some officials dismissing all such criticism as usually flawed.

No - I can't think of a better system than one whereby the people can regularly endorse or sack the leaders in a democratic way.

However this does lead to a further interesting issue, I like a system which can have the input of people such as Alec Broers, Robert Winston, Robert May, Susan Greenfield et al in the law making process - especially when the issues are scientific.

In other words I would like an appointed House of Lords whereby we at least have the opportunity of having our legislation scrutinised by the best brains in the country (and I do not mean just the scientists mentioned above). I cannot think of a better way of getting a cross section of views than by inviting a few hundred of the leading figures in society to scrutinise the laws proposed by the democratic chamber.

There are clearly issues surrounding how appointments are made (perhaps an independent Lords appointments committee of 10 - 20 Lords) but I'm sure these could be resolved.

I do not believe we would get the same level of scrutiny with an elected second chamber because I do not believe that many of the current appointed Lords would run for election.

Clearly the hereditary peers have no place.

We could start by organising the selection of candidates for parliament in such a way that the 600-odd MP's contain a significant number of scientists. Perhaps more broadly, parliament should contain more world-class thinkers from various disciplines.
We have had one Prime Minister with a scientific background. She was also married to a successful business man. In my view this "experiment" was pretty good for the UK in the long term.

Surely the real problem with a scientist running the country (or, for that matter, a barbecue) is that a scientist will want to explore and weight every option before reacting - in other words, we'd still be waiting for their tentative suggestions of how to deal with the the question of the Sudetenland to be peer-reviewed right now...

We can agree that all generalizations about social groups are inherently bound to be disproved. Having said that I feel that scientist lack a key characteristic crucial to governance: the ability to compromise. Like religious leaders, whom they have replaced in our social pantheon, scientists deal in absolute truths. No self respecting scientist is interested in compromising that which he feels to be fact...this is the worst possible mind set for leadership in the modern world.

A Scientist with a lot of balls+Compassion can run the coutry good.

can people please limit the amount of words in their post. It's quality not quantity,

Please short and simple.

Scientist should not run the country because they take too long to research any concept, because they are scared people.

thats why the drug companies have such a hold on them and us for believing them.

It used to be accepted that talented amateurs, who may well have been scientists but hopefully were multidisciplined, were the people to take the major decisions on national policy. People with financial security to insulate them from bribery and be able to choose the time to study other people's business rather than only their own.

Someone who has gone early into politics full time will probably lack certain kinds of understanding of industry, crafts and arts. Any high powered professional career risks a certain narrowness of experience unless deliberate efforts are made to avoid that. What is needed is a proper education, not just at school but in the world. Scientists should certainly not be excluded.

There´s a short article in this month´s MIT Technology Review on Engineers and Political Power:
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/04/issue/megascope.asp?trk=nl

Here´s a good relevant chunk.......

As the historian Kendall Bailes wrote in 1974, "What lawyers and businessmen are in the American political system—the major professional groups from which most politicians and policymakers are recruited—men with engineering backgrounds have become to a large extent in the Soviet Union."

Globally, then, the unpolitical Anglo-American nerd is the exception.

Seems we need some perspective.

Rup3rt

I don't even think scientists are fit to rule science! I agree with russel, the talker tonight illustrated how difficult they find ideas which challenge what is thought of as fact. This is not a trait for social governance where anything you could possibly hold, will shift. This trai seems to continually hinder the progression of our scientific understanding.

Scientists follow intelectual goals. Engineers develop their ideas and have a few of heir own, but politicians have the mental power to control, drive, or dominate the minds of those they lead,

What happens is chance. To improve the chances of success, a development environment must be created. Sweeping negative generalizations such as one individual can not now create important breakthrough are logical nonsense. Our lecturer tonight mentioned Tim Berners-Lee.

I say if we should stop treating our creative people as intelectual slaves whose only worth is to generate taxable revenue. Give them all seed money and culture those that appear successful. Honour them as the creators of our society and give them respect. There is just a chance that one in a thousand will save us all from the fate of stagnation that the ants have chosen to follow.

I was once asked by a friend if i would join menca as I have a high IQ ( I'm an engineering manager ) . I refused because I do not belied in elitist society. Even though i think i'm a thoughtful & responsible individual. I've found that no one group of individuals has a monopoly on wisdom (academic Smart , stupid ect) . I am dialectic and through my life i considered this a disadvantage . Only in the last few years have I discovered this gives me a different way of viewing many problems .So why should we wish to limit our self's to engineers any more than i wish to limit us to politicians.

AS a student of science, I think that scientists in government could drive real progress in research and development, but feel that scientists might lack the enterprise and skills to effectively run the country. my solution would be scientists in government not government by scientitsts.

What a fun question!

But no! No scientists as leaders. In fact there is no one group in society that seems especially fit to govern.

However, the true horror of the story is, that after a short while, whatever they were before, leaders inevitably turn into politicians...

Of course Margaret Thatcher was a chemist ...

A hearty no to your question.
I feel Lord Broers' talk illustrate the blinkered perspective on humanity which I imagine might be quite prevalent among scientists. Maybe, like CP Snow suggested, they don't read their Shakespear and regard people as things, using measurable data to determine their values. It seems beyond Boer's comprehension that the scientific advances do not equate to human progress. I'm already concerned about the current trend of politicians to rely on economic analysis, and scientists becoming leading us would only accentuate the dehumanisation of politics.

Now philosopher kings would be another issue.

Russell