[nil-sec]

Why exactly shouldn’t scientists be politicians? It’s not like most of the people who are politicians have a formal education in political science. In an ideal world the ministers should come from exactly the background they are tasked with. This seems to fit in Sweden. I don’t know why you believe an economist or lawyer would make better decisions here.

[Ma8ee]

I definitely think scientists should be politicians. Angela Merkel has a doctorate in quantum chemistry, and she is one of the most successful and respected politicians of our time.

But I do think it is dangerous to try to play the two roles at the same time. Science demands an honesty that few politicians can afford, which the current discussion about Anders Tegnell so well demonstrates.

[luckylion]

> Science demands an honesty that few politicians can afford, which the current discussion about Anders Tegnell so well demonstrates.

This varies across cultures though. Scandinavian countries have a bit of a different approach to many thing, the most recent example I stumbled across was Danish zoos honestly and explicitly saying that they can't keep all the animals, that they will kill some, and that they will feed them to e.g. the lions. They even make it a public thing where somebody will chop up the animal and explain stuff.

Those things generate outcries - in other countries. We're very used to hide "how the meat is made" from the general population, but that's not necessarily the same in all countries. I find it very refreshing for politicians to not have "a public and a private opinion", and I wish it was more common.

[mongol]

Of course they can be politicians. But a politician is elected and sits on a mandate from the people, and this comes with a clear accountability. A scientist that is not a politician is a scientist. It is a big discussion in Sweden, who really is in charge and who is ultimately responsible for the failures.