Hacker News Reader

Comment by peteretep | Hacker News Reader

> My guess is that very few "global leaders" are scientists

Often more than you'd think. Merkel is a Physicist (where Thatcher was a Chemist), Ursula von der Leyen is a licensed doctor (which almost counts?), and Abe Shinzō has a political science degree (which probably doesn't count :-D). That's 2.5 members of the G8ish.

View on HN

All have been out of academia for long enough that calling them "scientists" is a stretch

By that definition, not a single politician is a scientist because they all works in politics, not in academia.

No: GP said "out of academia long enough." Recent newcomers to politics with extensive backgrounds in professional science (for some definition of "recent" and "extensive") could still count.

The question is, were they any good in their original profession, and why did they move away from it and go to politics?

I think the point of their comment is that they had exposure to Science, which is almost as important as being a good scientist, because it alters how you think.

I disagree that plain "exposure" is worth anything. Let me bring up a sort of unrelated example. Whenever I meet someone that claims they have "some" experience with people with disabilities, it turns out they are worse then those people that dont claim that.

"Some experience with people with disabilities" implies a far lower level of commitment and immersion than the "exposure to science" that's being discussed in this thread.

If a politician claims they have a scientific background, but it turns out all they did was take gen bio in first year and follow a dozen popular scientists on Twitter, they'd be derided.

I don't know the specifics of the people in the article, but examples like Cédric Villani demonstrate that it's not OK to be rash in one's judgment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com