Wired Science followed up on the candidates’ responses to ScienceDebate 2008 by asking the campaigns for the names of their science advisers (I know it’s the Wired Science blog, but would it have killed them to ask for technology advisors as well?).  The McCain campaign hasn’t responded yet, but the Obama campaign has.  The names and affiliations of the five people the Obama campaign identified are:

Harold Varmus, a major player behind the Public Library of Science, former head of the National Institutes of Health, Nobel Prize winner, and currently President of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

Gilbert Omenn, professor at the University of Michigan (internal medicine/genetics/public health), on the Board of Directors of Amgen, former AAAS president.

Peter Agre, director of the Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute, major player in Scientists and Engineers for America, Nobel Prize winner, and lousy science policy communicator, as his 2006 appearance on The Colbert Report suggests.

Don Lamb, University of Chicago astrophysicist, involved with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, and a Mission Scientist on a NASA satellite, the high-energy transient explorer.

Sharon Long, Stanford University agricultural researcher (and former dean of Stanford’s School of Humanities and Science), former member of the Monsanto Board of Directors.

There’s more information on each of these individuals in the Wired Science article.  It’s important – critical – to read no more into these names than is currently out there.  There is no reason to believe that these individuals will automatically be appointed to particular science and technology positions in a potential Obama Administration.  Let me give a few reasons why:

There’s no indication that these individuals are interested in serving.

Of course, there’s also no indication that these individuals are not interested in serving.  But some of these scientists having already served in high-level science policy or science advocacy positions, and one of them just stepped down from an administrative job to return to her research.  To presume that these individuals will necessarily head major research agencies or head the Office of Science and Technology Policy is at least premature, if not misguided.

Service in the campaign does not always lead to post-election appointment

This is particularly true in science and technology positions, possibly because they are usually low on the priority list for appointments (and volunteers usually get picked for higher priority/prestige positions).  Additionally, some science and technology appointments are term appointments.  Current NSF Director Arden Bement was appointed to a six-year term in 2004, following the six-year term of his Clinton-appointed predecessor, Rita Colwell.

They may not be well qualified

This certainly doesn’t apply to Dr. Varmus, whose tenure at NIH was well-received (no doubt in part due to the budget doubling that started during his term).  But I do not accept the notion that a top-tier scientist (or technologist, but let’s beat that stalking horse another day) is automatically qualified to be a good science or technology administrator, or a science and technology policy official.  Simply compare the efforts of the two Nobel laureates in this list to see that science policy acumen is not necessarily connected to scientific acumen.  With science and technology policy becoming more interconnected throughout government and other policy areas, the deep specialization of top researchers isn’t as useful as it might have been in the 1950s, when physics and chemistry seemed to be the only disciplines of interest for national science and technology policy.  Leading me to my next point…

The Obama campaign will want some generalists

You may have noticed not only a disciplinary imbalance (4 of the 5 mentioned are life scientists), but the lack of a strong connection between the expertise of these scientists and the specifics of Obama’s science and technology policies (which you can link to through previous Prometheus posts).  Senator Obama, if successful in implementing some of his policies, will be focused at least as much on using science and technology in policy as focused on policies for science and technology.  To be fair, most Presidents are more concerned with the former, but rarely have we seen it so explicitly.  If a President Obama will be thinking differently about science, technology and policy, perhaps he will want to appoint people to certain science and technology positions (such as his proposed Chief Technology Officer) that will also think differently about science, technology and policy.

Let’s end this with a positive – it’s rare for it to be widely known what scientists are advising a Presidential campaign, and that should be appreciated.  Just don’t shoot the moon with the knowledge.