• Would make a lot more sense

    Scientists verify facts and analyze data to find the best solutions. Democracy promotes popularity and beauty contests to determine who is in charge and what becomes public policy and leads to irrational policies that reflect prejudices and the 'needs' of special interests that know how to manipulate those prejudices. Look at our irrational drug policy. Look at the pork barrel spending (though that's a drop in the bucket compared to the worst excesses of democracy). Political debate on military spending or any spending is highly dumbed down and between either "more spending" v. "less spending" because people are too bored to attend to the details. It could lead to more efficient spending if we did.

    Worse is democracy perpetuates a system that naturally seeks to keep people ignorant and uninterested in the details. A government run by scientists would want to expand people's knowledge, get more people educated because they know that that way society can advance as a whole, that way we get more technology, more innovation, more scientific discoveries, improvements in health care, education, safety. How much further ahead would this country be if it was run by scientists instead of democracy? How much progress would we have made on reversing climate change and promoting new forms of energy? Would we have seen cures for a variety of ailments like AIDS and cancer?

    Society as a whole would become more meritocratic-oriented. People would get ahead based on their actual knowledge and skills, based on what they can do and less based on social networks (favoritism and a$$-kissing) and appearance.

    The whole "nerd" phenomenon (which yes "nerd" is becoming a good thing but remember it wasn't) was based on the anti-intellectualism inherent in a democratic system. We should have a society that values intelligence above all as that is what produces strength and drives us ahead.

  • Yes... Well actually yes and no.

    I would not be so quick as to say they should run the ENTIRE government, but they should definitely play a much larger role in government than they currently do. To say only scientists should run the government is as short-sighted as saying the current trend of wealthy businessmen in government should continue. What we need are people who are qualified to make the decisions they are elected or appointed to make. Surely you wouldn't want a theoretical physicist or nuclear chemist advising the president on matters such as economic policy. I'm confident most would realize this job is much more suited for an economist. When it comes to congress, I believe there simply needs to be diversity in professional backgrounds: scientists, lawyers, doctors, economists, etc. instead of just one or two. Many of the problems in our society today can most certainly be attributed to our legislation not staying in-line with the research. Instead legislation is mostly influenced by corporate interest, when it should be influenced by logical reasoning and sound theory generated by intellectual individuals.

  • Yes they should.

    Science doesn't know everything, it doesn't even pretend to, it does however provide the best framework currently possible for arriving at solutions for our current social problems. A lawyer understands a game, a scientist understands reality. The only real mystery is why science still hasn't been applied to governmental decisions.

  • Hell yes .

    Todays governments are not checking their facts and going with what sounds best while rejecting what is actually true and happening, like nuclear power, gmo food, global warming needs to be taken more seriusly, polititans are in my oppinion way of track and focusing on all the wrong issues , science will allways be the closest we come to what is true why would you reject that

  • Well, of course.

    Many debates could be completely dodged in congress if scientists ran the country. Many things are happening that are scientifically proven to be a huge danger, yet politicians simply jump around these subjects, or worse, are horribly misinformed and take wrong actions. I could cite Global Warming as well as massive death of bees, who are necessary to pollination, and therefore, agriculture (our very source of food).

    Facts before faith!

  • Scientists can't handle the pressure? Sure they Can

    Find scientists that minored in politics. 8 out of China's top 9 politicians are scientists. China now has a larger economy than our own. Science is not even being funded enough by our own government. Science in the long run allows people to know the general truths for a less ignorant population. Plus, it builds economy. Science is an investment to knowledge, which allows for bigger and better innovations to lead as a country.

  • Decisions by scientists, goals by the public

    The scientific method provides us with facts. Analysis of these facts, and elaborate simulation, provides us with decisions based on these facts. What both of these lack is the clear definition of goals, as hard facts are completely agnostic of any intention. To enable scientist to lead the world, we would therefore need a political system which
    1 - decides on clear goals based on public vote or some party system (depending on the importance / urgency / granularity of the subject)
    2 - decides on the effectiveness of past solutions based on hard statistical evidence, and if necessary marks them for re-evaluation
    3 - finds the best solution to get from the status quo to the desired goals based on the scientific method. Any political opinion is misplaced at that point.

    To convert to a system like this would, of course, be an extraordinary effort, but keeping the political system from a time where the factuality of science was not given at all will probably prove way harder.

  • It's the best choice for our future.

    Coal is a dead industry. Capitalism is outdated. Climate change is a REAL problem that affects us NOW. 314 Action is what we need, and we can't afford to wait. Critical thinking, peer-reviewed evidence, and well documented plans for change are exactly what we need, and STEM members are the best ones to give us that. They have the experience, education, and understanding to get the job done, and science will ALWAYS trump false accusations and corporate buyouts. PLEASE put competent people in charge.

  • YES They Can (and should!)

    As a person with a BSc in Physics and MA in Politics, I think that scientists are best at understanding how things work (and don't work) and so can counter the myths and propaganda spread by the ideologues that are influencing our governments and their economic, domestic and foreign policies.

  • Scientific method in government

    The question should be not weather scientists should run the government but rather should the government operate under the model of science and the scientific method geared to problem solving therefore those most qualified individuals in their area of expertise should be calling the shots. The two party system is relic of an earlier age and has today morphed into tribalism and ideology.

  • Should economists do science experiments?

    I have never seen someone majoring in science get a degree in economics. Politics is a lot different than science, and would not be inclusive to any science rules. Scientists would be more analytic and honest, but the idea that an intelligent person in one field is the the same as an intelligent person in any other field is not only stupid, but also comical.

  • Scientist for Government

    Scientist may know a lot about science, but probaly not a lot about politics. You don't hear about scientist called politicist do you. They know about geology, zoology, and things like that. Would they really be that good in office. If they were passed into office then we mine as well nominate a two year old.

  • Scientists can't handle political pressure

    The military, businesses, politicians etc. all branches that work with the government will eat scientists alive. There are scientists that are savvy in political and business but they are rare and few and it's not like scientists do not argue with one another based on bias reasoning. Sometimes it takes too long for them to decide on what to do which can put the government into a fix.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.