0 0
Read Time:3 Minute, 1 Second

This week, Mexico made history by electing its first female president, Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo — a politician with a background in physics and environmental engineering. Despite her scientific pedigree, there is some skepticism within the scientific community regarding whether she will prioritize their interests, especially given her mentor and predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, cut science budgets and had a strained relationship with the scientific community.

As speculation grows about whether Sheinbaum Pardo will prioritize evidence-based decision-making, it’s worth examining how other scientists-turned-world-leaders have fared in office. Nature consulted historians and policy experts to understand whether a scientific background has proven beneficial or detrimental for national leaders.

Herbert Hoover, US President (1929–1933)

Herbert Hoover, who studied geology at Stanford University and became a successful international mining consultant, is one example. His technocratic skills helped him manage US food supplies during WWI, but his presidency was marked by the Great Depression. David Cole, president of the Science History Institute, notes that Hoover’s technocratic bias may have blinded him to the broader social, cultural, and political issues of the time. Despite initiating measures to combat the depression, Hoover’s inability to communicate his vision effectively led to his political downfall.

Margaret Thatcher, UK Prime Minister (1979–1990)

Margaret Thatcher, a trained chemist, became one of the most well-known and divisive UK prime ministers. Despite her scientific training, Thatcher led more by ideology than evidence, says John Muellbauer, an economist at the University of Oxford. Her tenure saw significant privatization and funding cuts in public services, which, along with rising unemployment, damaged her popularity. However, her leadership during the Falklands War temporarily boosted her reputation.

A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, President of India (2002–2007)

Aerospace scientist A. P. J. Abdul Kalam’s presidency was largely ceremonial, yet his election was inspirational, particularly for young scientists. Known for his role in developing India’s space and missile programs, Kalam’s scientific vision helped instill confidence in the country’s scientific community, says Rohini Godbole, a particle physicist at the Indian Institute of Science. His leadership emphasized the potential of home-grown science and technology for national development.

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany (2005–2021)

Angela Merkel, a quantum chemist, is noted for her pragmatic and evidence-based approach to political decision-making. Her tenure saw Germany navigate crises such as the European debt crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic effectively. Political scientist Matt Qvortrup of Coventry University asserts that Merkel’s scientific background was a virtue, contributing to her collaborative problem-solving approach and high approval ratings.

Yukio Hatoyama, Prime Minister of Japan (2009–2010)

Yukio Hatoyama’s brief tenure as Japan’s prime minister is often attributed to his idealistic approach. Despite his scientific training in industrial engineering, Hatoyama’s theoretical reasoning and failure to fulfill key campaign promises, such as relocating a controversial US military base, led to his resignation. Sayaka Oki of the University of Tokyo suggests that Hatoyama’s downfall was due to his “naive” approach and lack of practical political understanding.

The Verdict on Scientists as Leaders

Mike Lubell, a physicist at the City College of New York, emphasizes that successful scientist-leaders need to think like politicians. For Sheinbaum Pardo, drawing on her scientific knowledge without depending solely on it will be crucial. Lubell advises that ensuring the health of Mexican democracy will be essential for advancing the country’s science and technology sectors.

As Sheinbaum Pardo steps into her new role, her ability to balance her scientific expertise with political acumen will be closely watched by both the public and the scientific community.

Source: Nature

Happy
Happy
0 %
Sad
Sad
0 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
Angry
0 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %