I think it a great mistake for scientists to turn their backs on money matters. They don't need to be experts in economics but they should use sensible economic tests. For example a scientist might experiment to see how much extra yield can be obtained by applying fertiliser to a wheat crop. Rather than simply conclude that x tonnes of fertiliser per hectare increases yields by y % it would be sensible to consider whether the extra yield is worth the cost of the fertiliser. Otherwise there is a danger of pursuing useless research or of giving bad advice based on the research.
So, no need for great economic expertise; just economic common sense.
No, they don't, and neither do economists need to understand science. It can be difficult enough to understand your own field without requiring knowledge of fields that are completely independent.
Personally, I WANT to understand economics, though, and am reading through a couple of macroeconomics texts right now, one of them written by Ben Bernanke.
Frankly, I wouldn't look to any scientist for my economics theory nor would I look to economists for information on climate (although I do know at least one economist that is ALSO a climate scientist). So if some climate scientist suggests that what's needed is a carbon tax or carbon trading or whatever, that's fine, but I wouldn't really consider them to be an expert on the subject. If society as a whole decides that greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced, then economists can probably provide valuable input on how to do that.
EDIT for Zippi62: Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner and Henry Paulson are the primary reasons the U.S. did not go into another Great Depression. Bernanke is the type of Republican that seems to be missing in the party these days--an intelligent one.
It kind of depends on the question.
When scientists are, for example, proposing plans of action for society, they either need to understand economics, or have an economist provide the economics information and essentially treat it as true.
When economists are proposing plans of action that involve science, they need to either understand science, or have a scientist provide the scientific information and essentially treat it as true.
In a purely scientific endeavor (for example, "what is causing this phenomenon"), scientists only need to know economics if it somehow directly impinges on their research.
In a purely economic endeavor (for example, looking at the stock market), economists only need to know science if it somehow is directly involved (for example, predicting the performance of a tech company would be affected by what things the tech company had recently invented)
Of course, the scientist need to understand the economics for economizing the budget while researching.
Why? Does the cost of a reaction affect whether it can be done?
Does the cost of addressing a problem affect whether it should be identified?
The cost might affect what means is used, but not whether it will be beneficial.
As for economists, no, they don't have to become scientists.
It would help if they didn't call scientists liars because they don't like what they're hearing though.
Economists typically do the following:
Research and analyze economic issues
Conduct surveys and collect data
Analyze data using mathematical models and statistical techniques
Prepare reports, tables, and charts that present research results
Interpret and forecast market trends
Advise businesses, governments, and individuals on economic topics
Design policies or make recommendations for solving economic problems
Write articles for publication in newsletters and academic journals
Economists apply economic analysis to issues within a variety of fields, such as education, health, development, and the environment. Some economists study the cost of products, healthcare, or energy. Others examine employment levels, business cycles, or exchange rates. Still others analyze the effect of taxes, inflation, or interest rates.
Economists often study historical trends and use them to make forecasts. They research and analyze data using a variety of software programs, including spreadsheets, statistical analysis, and database management programs.
More than half of all economists work in federal, state, and local government. Federal government economists collect and analyze data about the U.S. economy. They also project spending needs and inform policy makers on the economic impact of laws and regulations.
Many economists work for corporations and help them understand how the economy will affect their business. Specifically, economists may analyze issues such as consumer demand and sales to help a company maximize its profits.
Economists also work for research firms and think tanks, where they study and analyze a variety of economic issues. Their analyses and forecasts are frequently published in newspapers and journal articles.
Some economists work abroad for companies with major international operations and for international organizations such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and United Nations.
Many people with an economics background become professors or teachers. For more information, see the profile on postsecondary teachers.
The following are examples of common economist specialties:
I doubt that any scientists really understands science as a whole. Economists don't totally understand economics either. Politicians look to "govern" both or at least gain enough trust to gain votes with their knowledge of them. People in general give the benefit of the doubt in all cases of professions because they are either too busy or too lazy to figure it out themselves. ... and then there are those that could care less. Finally, there are those that don't have the access to information. That just about covers the whole planet of people.
pegminer - Economics by Ben Bernanke? I now know that you lack any knowledge of economics and your education will recede reading Ben's work.
yes,
in a common both fields are associated with math.
in following both cases it doesn't mean a scientist should be matured in economy or an economist should be matured in science.
for a scientist he should be determined the resources need for him to carry out his experiments and request as per his need. he might need to limit his experiments for some budget.
but this doesn't mean he should be a pro as an economist. but he should have a general knowledge.
and for a economist he should be able to handle his activities with a more efficient way. he should have a knowledge of modern technology and their use to help his field.
in both cases, it is enough both of them to have only enough knowledge to cope with their needs.
At some level, yes. Every educated member of civil society should have a rudimentary knowledge of science and economics (and law, semantics, rhetoric, mathematics, logic, history, geography, engineering, pedagogy, etc.). Scientists do not need an advanced level knowledge of economics nor economists an advanced level knowledge of science, but it is more likely than not a plus if they do.
Obviously, here at YA, 95% of the posters are not at an advanced level on anything; the issue here is much more people without a rudimentary knowledge (of climate science) massively sabotaging the category, getting listed in the top ten BA list, lying like crazy about the science, etc. versus those with a rudimentary knowledge of science (and ethics) who sometimes object to such outrages.
Some climate models have an integrated economics model built in. So yes.
Some economists have written an econometrics based paper that could remake the climate field, as it makes things more politically feasible for the warmists, giving them a nice fallback position as Chinese emissions make their original plans unable to stop global warming.
Or do economists need to understand science?
Economics is a science.
that's not going to help, either way, that is....
if scientists understood spin, communication, and how the public is often manipulated by these things, well, if they understood it better that is....well that might help
If you have Jim Hansen proposing a carbon tax He better
be educated on the havok on the ecomony it would cause .
Does He think about the cash He would recive from it?
It would help if they both understood each other.
