There is a reason for this. In the Cdn public service, you are promoted if you have broad experience; most experts have highly specialized skills. As a manager, you work with other departments, stakeholders, politicians, etc. Scientists, like other experts, don't have that skill. https://twitter.com/AmarAmarasingam/status/1353125294429896706

This system is far from perfect, but the alternative - promoting experts with no managerial skill, no experience in central agencies or in preparing MCs or Treasury Board submissions - is not better. In fact I'd say it's worst.

How to improve the system? Rotations, rotations, rotations. Send your policy folks early in their careers in jobs where they are in close contact with the experts; they won't become experts but will develop more sensitivity to their work. Good managers do not need to be experts.

And if you want your good experts to eventually become senior public servants, make sure to spot them early in their career and send them on exchanges in central agencies or in policy shops. DO NOT just promote scientists with no other experience (except the rare gems of course)

Last point: this dynamic varies a bit, but it mostly applies to any expert community in the government - scuentists, doctors, lawyers, intelligence analysts, etc. To be promoted, they need a broader skillset.

Also: the journalist keeps on quoting frustrated scientists who lament they have to "dumb down" their work. But VERY often experts in government do a bad job of talking to non-experts. That's one other reason why you need policy experience for your mid level managets.

Good point by @NatalieBrender: there are processes in place to channel expert input into the broader process and yes, in many cases, it works well (which does not mean in a completely harmonious way: friction is inherent to the system, and necessary): https://twitter.com/NatalieBrender/status/1353142961207472128