Bishop Hill Beddington - definitely a lobbyist
May 14, 2011 Bureaucrats A few days ago, I noted the frank admission by the chief scientist in Australia that he saw himself as a lobbyist for the scientific community. I wondered at the time whether our own head boff was working for the benefit of those who pay his salary or just for scientists.
Here's the answer, found in Hansard:
Q5 Chair: Should the Committee, perhaps, re-think its position on the desirability of a Chief Scientific Officer at the Treasury, or do you think the need is even greater now?
Professor Sir John Beddington: I do believe it would be sensible to have a Chief Scientific Adviser in the Treasury. It is a thing I have discussed with Nick Macpherson, the Permanent Secretary in the Treasury. In the run-up to the CSR I did have meetings with the Senior Management Board of the Treasury, which Nick chairs. We were discussing primarily the Science Settlement and there are people in the Treasury who do absolutely know a lot about science and the importance of science, but I don’t think that is a substitute for actually having somebody who comes in from outside who has an appropriate external experience of science and engineering. I do think it is still important. The last month or so has been quite busy, so it is not a thing I have been pursuing with much energy, I confess.
Reader Comments (11)
and the name of modern science sinks even lower into the abyss of mammon!
It is truly shameful but life has taught me that in any organisation it is not the good that rise up to the top but the politicians (and that is all Beddington is) and it is they who truly have no shame and hold the world back. The man is a total travesty to his trade!
I agree with Pete H. I spent the whole of my working life as a scientist and I'm no longer proud of the fact. There is a vast human cost to the politicization of science - to be paid by our grandchildren.
I wonder if UEA will be offering degrees in sorcery, witchcraft, alchemy and black magic to go along with their current "scientific" offerings.
Life's the malady, milords & miladies, not thought.
"I wonder if UEA will be offering degrees in sorcery, witchcraft, alchemy and black magic to go along with their current "scientific" offerings."
May 14, 2011 at 9:14 PM | Don Pablo de la Sierra
I'd always assumed that these were standard topics in political science courses...
"... so it is not a thing I have been pursuing with much energy, I confess."
No, honest, he hasn't ... you there, stop sniggering.
Science helps us to understand the natural world.
I can't think of any examples where it helps to choose public policy or even private activities.
Science helps us to find new medicines - but doesn't help at all with the question of who should produce or pay for the medicine. Or whether the benefits justify any side-effects.
Science can build a moon rocket - but will not help to justify the cost of the rocket.
Science can design the Humber Bridge - but it will never tell you if you should build it or not.
I'm really struggling to think of any situation where science will decide on public policy.
Even in very mature and advanced parts of science like engineering, I cannot think of any situation where the engineering will inform public policy.
The gap gets even wider with infact sciences like climatology - they really don't know enough to inform any decisions or policies.
Another "blinder" perhaps?
I hope Oxburgh returned the favour and stood him a stiff one!
slightly o/t:
I just heard John Cook of skepticalscience say that the situation with the climategate inquiries is just the same as it is with climate science: there are multiple lines of 'evidence' but no one believes them!
And so goes the bouncing ball... the debate between the liars and deniers will never cease.
The position in Treasury that Beddington describes fits quite squarely with the derogatory term "armchair sceptic" that is used by the core of the climate study community, aka the consensus group.
Why would a Chief Scientist be wanting to place denialists in Treasury? Answer - interdepartmental rivalry. Always grab as much money as you can from the budget, even by playing dirty tricks on competing departments.