Why Scientists Should Have a Greater Voice On Global Security

Scientists don't have a good track record on setting policy. They tend to get too focused on their own little area and end up making bad decisions. And that doesn't even take into consideration what can happen when the wrong scientist gets in control, if you remember the Russian horrors of Lysenkoism.

Any time you create a process whereby people can acquire power, that process will be abused. Remember the fighting between Oppenheimer and Teller? It can get much, much worse than that.

If scientists have more power than average people, then everyone will rush to redefine themselves as scientists, like this guy [slashdot.org]. Instead of marketers, we'll have "social researchers." Instead of accountants we'll have "capital flow researchers." And I'm not going to stay out of the game, I'll definitely be a computer scientist, not a programmer. Soon the term "scientist" will lose its meaning.

If scientists want to affect policy in a democratic society, they need to get better at explaining. Albert Einstein reportedly said, "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother." It may sound excessive, but remember that's what Feynman did with advanced theoretical physics. You can do it. Of course, in a democratic society, if everyone collectively wants to shoot themselves in the foot, there's not always much you can do about it.

Source: http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotScience/~3/i5p7UO5pRyQ/story01.htm

joyful noise one life to live jeff fisher van der sloot heather locklear mlk memorial mlk memorial