However, persuasive ability may no longer be the hallmark of politics. Politicians themselves have become increasingly unpopular and viewed as ‘out-of-touch.’ Many social commentators believe that the age of political rhetoric has long passed and that, today, political culture is what matters. The philosopher Martha Nussbaum has theorised that political emotions that emerge from cultural practices are what truly change society. In this way, scientists that involve themselves in social media, activism and public debate are better placed to enhance society, than their counterparts who seek office. But if the symbolism of the office still holds resonance, then – like Al Gore – it may be the only logical choice for scientists who want to effect meaningful change.
Arguably, society would be better with more scientists in positions of political power – but are there not more pressing issues of race and gender representation that impact society more? Many people would consider Angela Merkel’s symbolic status as a female political leader more significant than her identity as a physicist. Besides, Besides, science itself has been accused of being an arena of privilege. Until scientists are more representative of society, their views and outlook may not offer any diversity to the legislature.
But equally, politics has to reform itself to science. Its short-termism, sensationalism and elitism will never gel with the scientific project. In short, politics has to become more scientifically literate to encourage the participation of scientists. I think this would unquestionably benefit society. I would argue that the separation of the social sphere and the scientific sphere is the true problem raised by this question. It is an issue of philosophical identity that is just as important as any other problem of representation. The science-politics divide is an artificial dichotomy, a false binary that has been created by society to its own detriment. The writer and chemist CP Snow highlighted this in his famous speech entitled ‘The Two Cultures.’ Snow traces the problem back to a split narrative formed at the Industrial Revolution – a fissure between those of us that have a working relationship with the technological and those of us served or threatened by that relationship. I think society would be better if scientists were present in the decision-making of politics but this is a top-down solution for a bottom-up problem. Educational polarisation and cultural boundaries have to be tackled so that social and scientific philosophies integrate in childhood public consciousness and careers.
Ultimately, the incompatibilities of skill-sets and values in politics and science respectively perhaps reveals a need for more rounded politicians who are the product of a better, less binary society. Surely more scientific voices and faces in the corridors of power can only advance this outcome.