Historian Fills Column Space in Nature on Politics and Advisers
April 1st, 2009Posted by: admin
Nature has in its 2 April issue an essay by historian Richard Dallek. (If it disappears between a subscription wall, check out this Nature podcast at 8:10 for an interview). The basic thrust of the piece is that academics performing as advisers to government have a mixed record of success. While he doesn’t mention him in the article, President (and Ph.D. holder) Woodrow Wilson is mentioned in the podcast.
His examples cover a variety of backgrounds, but are oddly light on scientific advisers, given the magazine that’s published the piece. Mentioning Henry Kissinger, McGeorge Bundy and Walt Rostow, all national security advisers, seems an odd emphasis, given the target audience. Robert Oppenheimer is his only scientific example, and the only positive example he lists. Comparing Kissinger, Rostow and Bundy to Chu and Holdren seems too broad to be effective.
Whether or not this is what undercuts Dallek’s lessons is unclear. His conclusions should be of no surprise to those familiar with the themes of this blog, and of Roger’s writings.
The principal lesson I see in assessing the records of intellectually brilliant men such as Oppenheimer, Bundy, Rostow and Kissinger is that academics should always provide advice based on the best available evidence and try not to be swayed by lobbying, or by political or ideological considerations. Total abstinence from politics is not an option, especially for a secretary of energy or a secretary of state who have to take account of both domestic and international political cross-currents, or groups and nations pressing their special interests. Nevertheless, allowing political judgements to overshadow evidence-based understanding is a prescription for making the sorts of errors that are all too common among partisans elected to high offices.
Keep in mind that Dallek is speaking about the advisers, not the politicians they advise. Realistically, the essay is nothing special. And it’s not at all clear why it was run in Nature, rather than American History or a similar publication. Personally, I’m disappointed. Dallek can do better than this, and Nature could have found a better essay or better essayist. For what it’s worth, while the podcast will take more time (6 minutes) than the essay, the interview is more focused on the topic and more germane to scientific advice.
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:27 am
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?
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:39 pm
“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.
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
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.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:15 am
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.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 pm
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.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
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.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
When did a science adviser convince everyone of anything?