Comments on: Historian Fills Column Space in Nature on Politics and Advisers http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5097 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: David Bruggeman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5097&cpage=1#comment-13216 David Bruggeman Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:38:18 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5097#comment-13216 When did a science adviser convince everyone of anything? When did a science adviser convince everyone of anything?

]]> By: SteveB http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5097&cpage=1#comment-13215 SteveB Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:18:56 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5097#comment-13215 Many years ago I was told an interesting story by someone at OMB. He said that when the President gets a new science advisor, they take part in meetings by using their scientific expertise. Since no one else in the room understands science, the science advisor persuades everyone to his viewpoint. Soon, the science advisor is no longer invited to meetings. Being smart people, they quickly catch on and stop using their scientific expertise to persuade. And then they become just another political advisor. It is only when talking to people outside the government that they continue to talk like scientists. This was true for both political parties. Many years ago I was told an interesting story by someone at OMB. He said that when the President gets a new science advisor, they take part in meetings by using their scientific expertise. Since no one else in the room understands science, the science advisor persuades everyone to his viewpoint. Soon, the science advisor is no longer invited to meetings. Being smart people, they quickly catch on and stop using their scientific expertise to persuade. And then they become just another political advisor. It is only when talking to people outside the government that they continue to talk like scientists. This was true for both political parties.

]]> By: David Bruggeman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5097&cpage=1#comment-13214 David Bruggeman Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:10:04 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5097#comment-13214 No scientific adviser has ever had the power and influence that Kissinger, McNamara, Bundy and their contemporaries have had. If the history isn't flattering, it's because of a lack of influence. Dallek's scholarship is in foreign policy and international affairs, so I'm inclined to think he couldn't stretch in terms of subject matter. No scientific adviser has ever had the power and influence that Kissinger, McNamara, Bundy and their contemporaries have had. If the history isn’t flattering, it’s because of a lack of influence. Dallek’s scholarship is in foreign policy and international affairs, so I’m inclined to think he couldn’t stretch in terms of subject matter.

]]> By: Tamara http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5097&cpage=1#comment-13212 Tamara Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:15:09 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5097#comment-13212 Perhaps the history wasn't flattering enough to the scientific advisers, and Dallek felt it prudent to adjust the focus while keeping the (watered-down) message. Perhaps the history wasn’t flattering enough to the scientific advisers, and Dallek felt it prudent to adjust the focus while keeping the (watered-down) message.

]]> By: David Bruggeman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5097&cpage=1#comment-13204 David Bruggeman Fri, 03 Apr 2009 00:43:17 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5097#comment-13204 This wasn't mission creep, as the piece and podcast were supposed to be about scientific advisers. Dallek - an historian - apparently felt better writing about those with academic training in history or foreign relations. This wasn’t mission creep, as the piece and podcast were supposed to be about scientific advisers. Dallek – an historian – apparently felt better writing about those with academic training in history or foreign relations.

]]> By: John M http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5097&cpage=1#comment-13203 John M Fri, 03 Apr 2009 00:39:33 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5097#comment-13203 "And it’s not at all clear why it was run in Nature, rather than American History or a similar publication." This "mission creep" is not unique to Nature. I have noticed that many professional organizations end up being led by closet political animals and their publications seem to attract editors and staff writers that somehow missed out on getting that dream job at the Washington Post. The days of dispassionate, cold, fact-based reporting consistent with the orgiginal mission seem to be gone, and dues paying members of "professional" organizations and subscribers to "science" magazines get stuck with hearing more and more political diatribes. “And it’s not at all clear why it was run in Nature, rather than American History or a similar publication.”

This “mission creep” is not unique to Nature. I have noticed that many professional organizations end up being led by closet political animals and their publications seem to attract editors and staff writers that somehow missed out on getting that dream job at the Washington Post.

The days of dispassionate, cold, fact-based reporting consistent with the orgiginal mission seem to be gone, and dues paying members of “professional” organizations and subscribers to “science” magazines get stuck with hearing more and more political diatribes.

]]> By: stan http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5097&cpage=1#comment-13188 stan Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:27:57 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5097#comment-13188 What a pathetic excuse for historical scholarship! I'm shocked that he would consider it a striking achievement that FDR's "brain trust" extended the depression by seven years or more. But his glossing over McNamara and the whiz kids is particularly curious. Surely Dallek has read Halberstam's devastating takedown of the "best and the brightest". Having set in motion the disastrous policies which wrecked Ford, McNamara and his Harvard whiz kids came to Washington and used their "superior" intellect to devastate the military and Vietnam. Could there be a more instructive cautionary tale of the dangers inherent in unleashing the intellectual hubris of the academic on our country? What a pathetic excuse for historical scholarship! I’m shocked that he would consider it a striking achievement that FDR’s “brain trust” extended the depression by seven years or more. But his glossing over McNamara and the whiz kids is particularly curious. Surely Dallek has read Halberstam’s devastating takedown of the “best and the brightest”. Having set in motion the disastrous policies which wrecked Ford, McNamara and his Harvard whiz kids came to Washington and used their “superior” intellect to devastate the military and Vietnam.

Could there be a more instructive cautionary tale of the dangers inherent in unleashing the intellectual hubris of the academic on our country?

]]>