(Note to readers: Being resent to fix spelling of Jane Lubchenco’s last name)

FALMOUTH

PRESIDENT-ELECT Obama’s recent choosing of three scientists to work in the upper levels of his administration brought mostly accolades and a bit of grousing from a vocal minority. Some pundits and bloggers have reacted with disdain, in part, because the appointees all believe that man-made climate change is real (and a problem) and have expressed their opinions about this and other issues. Others worry about how scientists trained in one narrow field could handle the spectrum of scientific problems that they may confront.

Here is the deal about scientists, especially really talented ones. They have egos, big egos. They are competitive, and they worry about their legacies. And their greatest fear is being wrong. I have seen scientists take extraordinary efforts to prove a colleague wrong (and, of course, relish the fight). And I have watched the attacked person take equally extraordinary efforts to prove not only his or her rightness but the wrongness of the attacker. Some of these scientific debates are intellectual street fights. The result is that questions are asked, gaps get filled, inconsistencies are hammered out, discoveries are made, problems get solved, and science incrementally moves forward. Science’s regulatory systems work more often than not. And unlike the world of Bernie Madoff, modern science hasn’t produced a Ponzi scheme decades long.

Senator Obama’s selections are some of our country’s finest scientists. They have received numerous awards and honors, including a Nobel Prize for Dr. Steven Chu, slated to run the Department of Energy. Professors John Holdren and Jane Lubchenco scheduled to act as the White House science-policy adviser and director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, respectively.

The latter two have both been past presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and McArthur Fellows. To receive any of these honors you must have the respect of not only the peers in your field of interest but of the whole scientific community.

What makes these candidates even more remarkable is that they challenge the very stereotypes that define scientists on television and in movies — the laughable and comedic nerds unable to communicate with the public, and who get lost in the Ivory Tower. (Please note that I am not providing a blanket denial of these stereotypes. These sorts of people exist.) However, Obama’s nominees have proven records of persuasively communicating science and their opinions — something that has been requested by policymakers and legislators for decades. They are true professionals who understand policy, have testified for Congress, and advised presidents. Simply put, they are the rare scientific renaissance people. I hope that they will inspire generations of scientists to act more like them.

Like all scientists, Mr. Obama’s choices have traveled down pathways that telescoped into increasingly specialized fields. However, they also have exhibited wisdom — the ability to ask the right questions the right way at the right time and the ability to find clarity within apparent chaos. They know the methodology and the codes and mores of the science community. They may not know the facts of gene-splicing or astrophysics, but they know how scientists think and talk and what motivates them. And, most importantly, they have proved that they know how to get things done.

I applaud the president-elect’s decision to surround himself with such gifted minds.

Will they succeed? Hard to predict. We need more data.

Chris Reddy, an occasional contributor, is a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.