Scientists in Politics?

Nancy Goroff, a Professor of Chemistry at State University of New York at Stony Brook, and a candidate for the US Congress raises several interesting points in an interview (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/oct/31/us-congress-hopeful-nancy-goroff-we-need-more-scientists-in-public-office). She is clearly of the opinion that, at least in the US, there is a surfeit of business and law graduates in public office (she states that only one former scientist is currently in an elected position in the US). One could also certainly point to a similar lack of scientists in elected positions in the UK parliament (in one sense, they are even more 'inbred' in this country, with a majority graduating from a single University). I would certainly agree that it can be helpful to have people, from a greater variety of backgrounds and with differing expertises, in the legislations of democratic countries. Just having one science graduate around might be helpful, by acting as a focus, to explain things to their colleagues. Having said that, however, scientists and politicians have rather different skill sets (not all of which relate to their university degree, if they have one). Furthermore, 'scientists' are very variable 'animals', with a astrophysicist being very different from a zoologist. I certainly don't think we should even contemplate attempting to fill congress or the UK parliament with one of each! So, if there are any, it's going to be a random selection (as is the case with former actors or medics), based on other considerations (including a willingness to give up, at least for the duration of their term, their scientific career). It must also be noted that, simply being a former scientist, is no guarantee of quality as a legislator or a person (although most might be less 'tricky' than lawyers). There are 'odd balls' in all professions! What is clearly of greater importance, in the present circumstances, is how elected officials interact with the scientific advice that is made available to them. They must recognise that science is constantly 'evolving' (so certainty is far from certain). They should also be exposed to the widest possible range of sensible scientific input and must not be tempted to simply pick the bits of advice that chime with their preconceptions. 'Following the science' is a meaningless phrase. Perhaps, however, politicians should, at the start of their first terms, receive some guidance on interpreting scientific advice?