David Willetts named as UK science minister

[ajb]

After a few days of political horse-trading, a resignation speech from former UK prime minister Gordon Brown and the emergence of the first coalition government since the Second World War, the UK has a new science minister.

 

Nicknamed “two brains”, Willetts was shadow secretary of state for innovation, universities and skills from July 2007 and before that was shadow secretary of state for education from December 2005 to July 2007.

 

See the IOP news report by Michael Banks here.

 

The UK's new minister responsible for research will have a very challenging brief, say science advocates.

 

Mr Willetts, the MP for Havant, has a reputation for intellect, and picked up the nickname "two brains" among the Westminster press corps.

 

The Royal Society, the UK's academy of science, welcomed the appointment of David Willetts.

 

Here is the BBC news report by Jonathan Amos.

 

He is Member of Parliament for Havant. He has his own website.

 

 

Here is what Wikipedia says.

Edited May 14, 2010 by ajb

[Severian]

Bah - another science minister with no scientific training. Why should I take him seriously?

[Genecks]

Good thing I'm an American.

lol.

*eats a spoonful of Mac N' Cheese*

[John Cuthber]

Just what we need, another politician who (so it seems) is already known to be dishonest.

"However, he was forced to resign from the latter post by the Standards and Privileges Committee over an investigation into Neil Hamilton in 1996, when it found that he had "dissembled" in his evidence to the Committee over whether pressure was put onto an earlier investigation into Hamilton."

 

(From the wiki article cited).

[the tree]

Bah - another science minister with no scientific training.

I'm going to call non sequitur on that, there's no reason to presume that a good director must also be a good actor. Based on the IOP article, he seems fairly pro-science.

[John Cuthber]

"there's no reason to presume that a good director must also be a good actor."

True, but a good director must understand how theatre works.

Why didn't they get a scientist to fill this post?

 

I wonder how much of a coincidence it is that both he, and Mr Cameron studied PPE at Oxford and I wonder if that had more to do with his appointment than his understanding of science.

[Severian]

I'm going to call non sequitur on that, there's no reason to presume that a good director must also be a good actor. Based on the IOP article, he seems fairly pro-science.

 

Are you saying that you can understand science with no science training? Or are you saying that understanding science is not necessary for deciding which science to fund?

[the tree]

Are you saying that you can understand science with no science training? Or are you saying that understanding science is not necessary for deciding which science to fund?

Kind of both, mostly the latter. Say someone had a masters in physics but hadn't looked at biology since high school - would he be any more qualified than this guy to comment on what medical research projects should receive the most funding? You couldn't realistically ask for someone well versed in every area of science that receives government funding but you can ask for someone well versed in how research funding works and what returns are needed from it.

[Severian]

Say someone had a masters in physics but hadn't looked at biology since high school - would he be any more qualified than this guy to comment on what medical research projects should receive the most funding?

 

I would definitely say so (though I suppose it depends on the quality of the masters, and of course all other relevant skills being equal).

 

You couldn't realistically ask for someone well versed in every area of science that receives government funding but you can ask for someone well versed in how research funding works and what returns are needed from it.

I didn't say that the science minister should be trained in physics to make decisions on physics funding, but I do think they should be trained in science. It is important that they are able to assess evidence for themselves, and have a reasonable understanding of how scientifc research is carried out.

 

A related question might be, would you want someone like David Tredinnick, who is a believer in "medical astrology", in charge of spending on health care? (I realise that our new science minister is not that much of a looney, but the principle remains.)

[John Cuthber]

Since he (Tredinnick) has no apparent understanding of cause and effect I don't see how he can represent his constituency, never mind fill any other role.

However,

the point about science is not that they happen to know the molecular weight of albumen or the decay rate of neutrons in a warm bath. The point is an understanding of the whole philosophy that science is based on (and which is, interestingly, at odds with both astrology and dishonesty).