No, not him of course he has no medical background. But, I was referring to Jim O'Neil
Lawyers for Dr Susan Monarez say only the president can remove her from her job running the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
www.bbc.com
ah gotcha.
well you've just introduced me to the story so no comment on that matter, but concerning not appointing a position of policy making/ executing to someone who doesn't have a (technical or theoretical) background on x matter. Here's my 2 cents.
I actually see this "technocratic'ish" sentiment a lot and I genuinely, and with respect to the people holding it (your opinion is yours), think its a bit bollocks.
The big problem with the idea of "a background having expert in the field" somehow therefor making a great policy maker, manager or leader in x subject, is that more often than no the problem of To a Hammer everything is a nail.
What is an expert? An expert is an average bloke like you or me who just happens to know an ittipitty more about a horrendously specific subject, which he/she has spent the formative best years of life devoted to, and who’s entire financial and status situation is dependent on. That sets the stage for blindspotting and biases
When you are dealing with (fairly) broadstroke political or organisational conundrums what you don’t want is an expert. What you need is a general(ist), someone who can see the overall picture, someone who can lead. And then that guy or gal can have “experts” around him if you must. (Not saying Jim O'neill is this person perse, by the way)
The CEO of the contractor I work for runs the company and its people brilliantly from contract to contract and to profitable annual quarters consistently, and has never touched a shovel in his life or has any technical knowhow of how Dreding, Monopiling, or pouring concrete works.