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 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 problems will require increasing attention. Environmental issues, such as the greenhouse effect, acid rain, pollution, waste disposal, and access to clean water, have moved from the pages of scholarly journals to daily worries. Health questions, including AIDS, medical care, and the growing national crisis of drug and alcohol abuse, threaten our social structure. Equally important, biotechnology will come of age in the l990s. Possibilities that existed only in science fiction and the images of scientists will become reality. There can be no doubt that agricultirre, medicine, and industry will be transformed by our growing mastery of DNA. What is uncertain is how these transformations will occur and with what effects. What is certain is that the science policy of the federal goveminent will play a major role. Though visible to few people, the president’s science adviser has an extremely important job. The function and prominence of the adviser has varied with each president, but there are three basic models. He or she can be an advocate for the scientific community, an adviser on substantial issues, or a promoter of administration policies. The role is important, but so is the type of person. Not surprisingly, the scientific and technical communities have spent the last several months avidly debating in journals and meetings the role of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The discussions have concentrated on the very important questions of goals and organization. A question as yet not asked concerns the kind of scientist the president’s chief adviser should be. The question is important. Historians speak of sciences and technologies, not science and technology, reflecting the differences in outlook and, approach among the disciplines. Sociologists agree that each profession, be it the legal or scientific, has a different view of the world. These differences are manifested in their priorities, structure, and methodologies. Broadly speaking; biologists are often more holistic, particularly in the ecological sciences, than physicists and chemists. Physicists work by reducing questions to their simplest principles environmentalists work in a more complex world. Aided by increasingly sophisticated theories, instruments and computers, the life sciences are now undergoing the exciting revolutions experienced by physics earlier this century. The president’s science adviser should be someone who possesses breadth and vision and who has the respect of the scientific profession. Both are important because this scientist will counsel the president on issues ranging from the nationwide shortage of mathematicians to tax credits for solar energy. The president may well appoint another physicist, but perhaps now is the time to consider an environmental scientist, a scientist whose main concern is the health and welfare of the citizenry. With this perspective, we can expect a different approach to—and definition of—problems. The choice of an environmental scientist would not diminish the importance of the other areas of science and technology. The approach taken by the government will, however, change. We can expect more complex and integrated solutions, reflective of the nature of tomorrow’s problems. With his choice of cabinet, President Bush has already given the country a sense of his political goals. When he chooses a science adviser, he will show how well his priorities mesh with the problems and possibilities facing the nation. Jonathan Coopersmith is an assistant professor of history and technology at Texas A&M University

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

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of