Return to Answer

Scientocracy is a government based around basing public policies on science. One proponent of scientocracy is American physician Peter A. Ubel, who describes it like this:

"Scientocracy: Policy making that reflects human nature. When I talk about Scientocracy, then, I'm not talking about a world ruled by behavioral scientists, or any other kind of scientists. Instead, I am imagining a government of the people, but informed by scientists. A world where people don't argue endlessly about whether educational vouchers will improve schools, whether gun control will reduce crime, or whether health savings accounts can lower health care expenditures,... but one instead where science has a chance to show us whether vouchers, gun control laws, and health savings accounts work and, if so, under what conditions."

It was even referred to as far back as 1933 by Luxembourgish-American inventor and writer Hugo Gernsback as "the direction of the country and its resources by Scientists and not by Technicians". This form of government, however, has not currently been attempted by any nation & currently remains as a hypothetical form of governance.

Some argue that scientocracy can be a good form of governance since studies prove that those with a higher IQ tend to have a higher emotional intelligence & scientists tend to have a higher IQ than others, having smart people who will use scientific evidence and facts to try to solve national problems seems like a generally good idea, and scientist tend to value honesty, as do other smart people. However, many against this form of governance, or at least critical of it, argue that even if they have high standards, scientists can fall victim to the trappings of other human beings, with some doing things like falsify studies for political reasons.

Scientocracy differs from the average dictatorship because similar to certain forms of technocracy, some forms of Scientocracy can include democracy with the experts elected by the people or chosen by elected officials, but requiring certain conditions and credentials for those being put into positions of authority. Even more autocratic versions should still be based around having scientific experts who rise through the ranks based on meritocracy instead of through traditional power plays. However, this form of governance is currently hypothetical and hasn't been implemented in a large scale in any country as of late, but hopefully this answers the question by being a scientific political ideology.

Scientocracy is a government based around basing public policies on science. One proponent of scientocracy is American physician Peter A. Ubel, who describes it like this:

"Scientocracy: Policy making that reflects human nature. When I talk about Scientocracy, then, I'm not talking about a world ruled by behavioral scientists, or any other kind of scientists. Instead, I am imagining a government of the people, but informed by scientists. A world where people don't argue endlessly about whether educational vouchers will improve schools, whether gun control will reduce crime, or whether health savings accounts can lower health care expenditures,... but one instead where science has a chance to show us whether vouchers, gun control laws, and health savings accounts work and, if so, under what conditions."

It was even referred to as far back as 1933 by Luxembourgish-American inventor and writer Hugo Gernsback as "the direction of the country and its resources by Scientists and not by Technicians". This form of government, however, has not currently been attempted by any nation & currently remains as a hypothetical form of governance.

Some argue that scientocracy can be a good form of governance since studies prove that those with a higher IQ tend to have a higher emotional intelligence & scientists tend to have a higher IQ than others, having smart people who will use scientific evidence and facts to try to solve national problems seems like a generally good idea, and scientist tend to value honesty, as do other smart people. However, many against this form of governance, or at least critical of it, argue that even if they have high standards, scientists can fall victim to the trappings of other human beings, with some doing things like falsify studies for political reasons.

Scientocracy differs from the average dictatorship because similar to certain forms of technocracy, some forms of Scientocracy can include democracy with the experts elected by the people or chosen by elected officials, but requiring certain conditions and credentials for those being put into positions of authority. Without those credentials, whatever the scientific society makes them, a potential candidate can't run. Even more autocratic versions should still be based around having scientific experts who rise through the ranks based on meritocracy instead of through traditional power plays. However, this form of governance is currently hypothetical and hasn't been implemented in a large scale in any country as of late, but hopefully this answers the question by being a scientific political ideology.

Scientocracy is a government based around basing public policies on science. One proponent of scientocracy is American physician Peter A. Ubel, who describes it like this:

"Scientocracy: Policy making that reflects human nature. When I talk about Scientocracy, then, I'm not talking about a world ruled by behavioral scientists, or any other kind of scientists. Instead, I am imagining a government of the people, but informed by scientists. A world where people don't argue endlessly about whether educational vouchers will improve schools, whether gun control will reduce crime, or whether health savings accounts can lower health care expenditures,... but one instead where science has a chance to show us whether vouchers, gun control laws, and health savings accounts work and, if so, under what conditions."

It was even referred to as far back as 1933 by Luxembourgish-American inventor and writer Hugo Gernsback as "the direction of the country and its resources by Scientists and not by Technicians". This form of government, however, has not currently been attempted by any nation & currently remains as a hypothetical form of governance.

Some argue that scientocracy can be a good form of governance since studies prove that those with a higher IQ tend to have a higher emotional intelligence & scientists tend to have a higher IQ than others, having smart people who will use scientific evidence and facts to try to solve national problems seems like a generally good idea, and scientist tend to value honesty, as do other smart people. However, many against this form of governance, or at least critical of it, argue that even if they have high standards, scientists can fall victim to the trappings of other human beings, with some doing things like falsify studies for political reasons.

Scientocracy is a government based around basing public policies on science. One proponent of scientocracy is American physician Peter A. Ubel, who describes it like this:

"Scientocracy: Policy making that reflects human nature. When I talk about Scientocracy, then, I'm not talking about a world ruled by behavioral scientists, or any other kind of scientists. Instead, I am imagining a government of the people, but informed by scientists. A world where people don't argue endlessly about whether educational vouchers will improve schools, whether gun control will reduce crime, or whether health savings accounts can lower health care expenditures,... but one instead where science has a chance to show us whether vouchers, gun control laws, and health savings accounts work and, if so, under what conditions."

It was even referred to as far back as 1933 by Luxembourgish-American inventor and writer Hugo Gernsback as "the direction of the country and its resources by Scientists and not by Technicians". This form of government, however, has not currently been attempted by any nation & currently remains as a hypothetical form of governance.

Some argue that scientocracy can be a good form of governance since studies prove that those with a higher IQ tend to have a higher emotional intelligence & scientists tend to have a higher IQ than others, having smart people who will use scientific evidence and facts to try to solve national problems seems like a generally good idea, and scientist tend to value honesty, as do other smart people. However, many against this form of governance, or at least critical of it, argue that even if they have high standards, scientists can fall victim to the trappings of other human beings, with some doing things like falsify studies for political reasons.

Scientocracy differs from the average dictatorship because similar to certain forms of technocracy, some forms of Scientocracy can include democracy with the experts elected by the people or chosen by elected officials, but requiring certain conditions and credentials for those being put into positions of authority. Even more autocratic versions should still be based around having scientific experts who rise through the ranks based on meritocracy instead of through traditional power plays. However, this form of governance is currently hypothetical and hasn't been implemented in a large scale in any country as of late, but hopefully this answers the question by being a scientific political ideology.

Scientocracy is a government based around basing public policies on science. One proponent of scientocracy is American physician Peter A. Ubel, who describes it like this:

"Scientocracy: Policy making that reflects human nature. When I talk about Scientocracy, then, I'm not talking about a world ruled by behavioral scientists, or any other kind of scientists. Instead, I am imagining a government of the people, but informed by scientists. A world where people don't argue endlessly about whether educational vouchers will improve schools, whether gun control will reduce crime, or whether health savings accounts can lower health care expenditures,... but one instead where science has a chance to show us whether vouchers, gun control laws, and health savings accounts work and, if so, under what conditions."

It was even referred to as far back as 1933 by Luxembourgish-American inventor and writer Hugo Gernsback as "the direction of the country and its resources by Scientists and not by Technicians". This form of government, however, has not currently been attempted by any nation & currently remains as a hypothetical form of governance.

Scientocracy is a government based around basing public policies on science. One proponent of scientocracy is American physician Peter A. Ubel, who describes it like this:

"Scientocracy: Policy making that reflects human nature. When I talk about Scientocracy, then, I'm not talking about a world ruled by behavioral scientists, or any other kind of scientists. Instead, I am imagining a government of the people, but informed by scientists. A world where people don't argue endlessly about whether educational vouchers will improve schools, whether gun control will reduce crime, or whether health savings accounts can lower health care expenditures,... but one instead where science has a chance to show us whether vouchers, gun control laws, and health savings accounts work and, if so, under what conditions."

It was even referred to as far back as 1933 by Luxembourgish-American inventor and writer Hugo Gernsback as "the direction of the country and its resources by Scientists and not by Technicians". This form of government, however, has not currently been attempted by any nation & currently remains as a hypothetical form of governance.

Some argue that scientocracy can be a good form of governance since studies prove that those with a higher IQ tend to have a higher emotional intelligence & scientists tend to have a higher IQ than others, having smart people who will use scientific evidence and facts to try to solve national problems seems like a generally good idea, and scientist tend to value honesty, as do other smart people. However, many against this form of governance, or at least critical of it, argue that even if they have high standards, scientists can fall victim to the trappings of other human beings, with some doing things like falsify studies for political reasons.