Who Should Be The President's Science Adviser? Not A Physicist

The nation’s future well-being depends on its educational, scientific, and technological base. As the priorities and needs of the 1990s will differ from those of the 1970s and 1980s, so too should the president’s science adviser. The problems and opportunities of the next decade will lie with the life sciences. Because of this increased focus on biology, an environmental scientist should be the next science adviser instead of the traditional physicist. The issues of the next dec

Jonathan Coopersmith
Apr 2, 1989

The nation’s future well-being depends on its educational, scientific, and technological base. As the priorities and needs of the 1990s will differ from those of the 1970s and 1980s, so too should the president’s science adviser. The problems and opportunities of the next decade will lie with the life sciences. Because of this increased focus on biology, an environmental scientist should be the next science adviser instead of the traditional physicist.

The issues of the next decade are very different from those of the previous decades when a narrow Cold War base of competition, national security, and public relations promoted a Big Science agenda of atomic energy and space. Today, the importance of science and technology extends over a far wider range of concerns, including the economic heart of the country, education, and the environment.

The major issues facing the Bush administration have a strong biological focus.. Ecological and health...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?