There is no reason why scientists cannot run for public office. Reason, logic and strategic thinking is what we need - doesn’t matter if it’s a scientist, engineer or an accountant.
Compared to the shit we have today, this would be a huge step forward.
Plenty of scientists have leadership and political skills. It’s not like scientists are just completely incapable of dealing with people - that is the cliche and we need to objectively think about this.
Gerrymandering is another example of the abundance of misguided cleverness in the American system.
There are so many scientists and engineers that lead multi-billion dollar corporations. They have, in addition to reason , logic and strategic thinking - organizational, political and people skills.
My point is that just having a scientific background should in no way be a limiting factor. In fact, it should be a positive thing.
Reason, logic and strategic thinking (hereafter, "they") don't get you palatable slogans like "Yes we can" and "The Buck Stops Here".
They don't empower you with the ability to shake a man's hand on the campaign trail and remember their name, their wife's name, and the details of their situation a year later (or the con-man ability to pretend they can through cold-reading).
They don't teach you when to talk, when to shut up and listen, and how to effectively communicate your ideas to an audience.
They don't teach you how and when to compromise your ideals to get somebody else's bill passed so that you can effectively curry political favor and capital on the issue that matters to you enough to uphold your campaign policies.
Past that, the constitution (and thus, law) cannot be parsed in any programmatic or logical way. Without that understanding, you can't know what is or isn't constitutional, or even if something is or isn't constitutional, whether or not it's likely to be upheld by a system of courts, or what words to use during its planning phase such that the legislative record reflects the best chances of ensuring it be read by the courts in the manner you desire.
All that said, I freely acknowledge that the abilities to schmooze, read and write law, and effectively sway others to your belief do not necessarily empower you to understand climate data, or the ecological impact of a tariff on solar panels, or the technological impact of a blockchain.
Either way, we need a diverse group of people in power - true diversity, in the usual ways as well as in the experiential, cultural and viewpoint diversity metrics to truly represent the many valid ideas to be had within the electorate. Of course, the more diversity you have within a legislature, the more they tend to disagree on things ,and the less likely you are to get compromise. Personally, I maintain that's a feature of the legislature, but considering every time Congress is seen as 'do-nothing', their approval ratings drop, which is why political parties tend to coalesce behind a few divisive issues and then just kind of fall in line or not give much credence to the remainder, using rhetoric to blame the other party for its woes.
People with a political science degree become Presidents. There are political scientists that also sit at Walmart cash registers.
I am not saying that all scientist are eligible for public office. I am saying that if someone is a scientist running for the office, that should not be a limiting factor.
Germany seems to be doing very well with many scientist leaders. Angela Merkel has a PhD in physical chemistry. Just because America doesn't respect scientists that much, doesn't mean they don't make good leaders.
I am genuinely curious.
And I'm not saying "scientists are bad politicians". I'm saying what the two groups do don't overlap a ton.
For a gross example, most scientists will have to learn to lie to be good politicians, because all good politicians play fast and loose with the truth.