I'm a politician. I'm not going to get into a whole range of scientific argument with scientists.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
What we want is scientists who don't become part of the policy discussion: All they do is produce science. If someone becomes an advocate, then I won't pay as much attention to their science.
I don't know how you overcome the dearth of scientists in the government positions.
Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.
I believe that politics takes a much different set of skills than science. Science is about getting to the truth. Politics is about what people think and how they react.
A lot of my role is advocacy, and as a scientist, you're an advocate, too, because you are coming up with a theory and having to convince your fellow scientists that you're right.
You have not fully expressed your power as a voter until you have scientific literacy in topics that matter for future political issues.
I'm not just a scientist.
Many science people feel groups like WHO are there to do a job and not to be dealt with in a political way.
Science moves fastest when there's plenty of debate and controversy.
People don't generally listen to scientists much.
No opposing quotes found.