Letters to the Editor
-
@ shannonr--scientists and leaders
I really like your Truman and Churchill accents. :) Made me laugh.
With regards to the specific science, I can agree with you up to a point. With good reason, we don't expect our leaders to be scientists. The level of detail involved in learning all the material would certainly preclude their exercising their stronger skills (hopefully diplomacy, compromise, rhetorical strength, etc.)
But I'm just talking about a basic grasp of what's going on. For instance, in the ongoing debate of how stem cell research will be funded. I certainly do think it's important for a leader involved in funding decisions to have at least a surface understanding of the fact that we can now create stem cells from different sources: fetal tissue or skin cells--and what some of the advantages and disadvantages are of each, and what the implications might be for their usefulness. Of course they're being briefed on that info by their scientists, not doing the legwork on that themselves.
As for Truman...I don't know if it's the case or not...but I would hope that yes, he understood what an atom was and why the bombs were expected to be as destructive as they were. Not an in-depth understanding. Not a nuclear scientist's understanding. But a surface grasp of the principles and consequences involved.
Consider a leader who does or doesn't have the ability to understand the ways that birth control has and has not been shown to be a risk to women's health.
But beyond specific science, I'm talking about intellectual curiosity and problem-solving. Systematic problem-solving in any area works much the same way as the scientific method. Ask a question about a problem. Gather data to clarify the problem. Suggest an answer. Try it. Did it work? If not, gather data on why not. Try something else that takes the previous attempt's lessons into account.
And above all, skepticism. The ability to not just believe what you're told, but to ask "how do we know that? What is the evidence?" And what *makes* it evidence.
Truman and Churchill, I'm guessing, probably dealt with a lot of arguments and evidence, not necessarily about scientific issues, but about even larger ones. And the basic critical thinking skills are very similar.