Pythagorean said:
no, I don't mean the field of study, political science, I'm referring to hard scientists that are politically engaged/interested. How many are there?
Most of my scientific community isn't really interested much at all in politics. There are couple, but they're kind of nutty (or maybe this is just my opinion based on my aversion to politics).
Anyway, how many of physicsforums hard scientists are politically engaged? Is this stereotypical of scientists to not like politics? Why do you think?
A physics professor at my alma mater was very active in the anti-nuclear-weapons effort. On the door of his office was a list of near nuclear launches resulting from false detections due to flocks of birds, misidentified aircraft, systems failures and the like. He was very active in opposing automatic response systems that take the human out of the decision loop.
The origins of the environmental movement is usually credited to the book, Silent Spring, by Rachael Carson - a marine biologist.
Much of the environmental movement [and others] since Silent Spring finds its roots in science -deforestation, overpopulation, food production challenges, the loss of water supplies, the loss of species, AIDS and other diseases, pollution... Scientists are the ones who tell us that we are now in the middle of the next great extinction. And one can hardly ignore the furor over global warming - perhaps the greatest single issue ever faced by humankind.
One could hardly address this question without considering Eistein's famous letter to Roosevelt.
What drives many political issues is the underlying science. So, by definition, scientists play a siginficant role in politics. But it is also likely true that many scientists are focused on one particular problem, rather than all of politics.
I can't help but think of one marine biologist who was glad to retire. She didn't want to be around to watch the oceans die. Was that a political statement?
