Pew Poll: Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans

[dairygirl4u2c]

Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000010

 

A new study by the Pew Research Center finds that the GOP is alienating scientists to a startling degree.

Only six percent of America's scientists identify themselves as Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats. By comparison, 23 percent of the overall public considers itself Republican, while 35 percent say they're Democrats.

The ideological discrepancies were similar. Nine percent of scientists said they were "conservative" while 52 percent described themselves as "liberal," and 14 percent "very liberal." The corresponding figures for the general public were 37, 20 and 5 percent.

Among the general public, moderates and independents ranked higher than any party or ideology. But among scientists, there were considerably more Democrats (55%) than independents (32%) and Republicans (6%) put together. There were also more liberals (52%) than moderates (35%) and conservatives (9%) combined.

"These results were not a complete surprise," said Scott Keeter, Director of Survey Research at Pew, in an interview with the Huffington Post. He said they can be mostly attributed to "the difference between Democratic and Republican parties with respect to issues."

The wide ideological and partisan gap among scientists may have been exacerbated by the Bush administration, which often disputed broad scientific consensus on topics such as evolution and climate change.

Keeter acknowledged this factor, but said that "many of these disputes probably predate the Bush administration," noting that scientists have favored liberal views in numerous past studies.

Religion also plays a role. Republicans tend to promote the centrality of religion more often than Democrats, and while 95 percent of the public said they believe in "God" or "a higher power," only 51 percent of scientists claimed either.

"Many Republicans, especially the Evangelical wing of the party, are skeptical of evolution, and have argued for the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in school," said Keeter.

The results could merely be a reflection of how scientists see the world, rather than of partisan loyalties. In a series of questions posed, the study found that the answers of scientists were consistently more in line with liberal viewpoints than those of the general public.

"The Republican Party has a number of leaders within it who have challenged the accuracy of scientific findings on issues such as climate change, evolution and stem cell research," Keeter told the Huffington Post.

"It suggests that scientists who are Republicans might feel some dissonance from the party's position on some things that are important to them. And while there are Republicans in the scientist sample, there are really not that many," he said.

[fides' Jack]

Interesting take...  

 

Personally, I see it more as scientists alienating conservatives, and not the other way around.  It should also be noted that just because someone is a so-called "scientist" it doesn't mean that they adhere to real science.  Reasons for this might be personal or authoritative.  For instance, some doctors regularly perform euthanasia or infanticide.  From another perspective, what do they mean by "scientist"?  You could call me a computer scientist, but I'm sure my field is not represented here.

 

So I'm not sure what, if anything, this report is really saying.

[Basilisa Marie]

Let's see...which party has more members that have more problems with evolution, global warming, stem cell research?  And members that are uncomfortable around people who are highly educated, who aren't "Plain Spoken", who speak in "politically correct" terms?  Which party has more members who make more decisions from a faith or intuition based center?  

 

Obviously not all Republicans fit all of that criteria, that's a gross exaggeration.  But some of the loudest ones certainly fit some of that.  Why would you join a group that seems hostile to your job?  How often do you hear Republicans talk about science and scientists in a positive way, versus in a negative way? 

 

Almost half of scientists claimed to be Independent.  That category probably includes people who would be sympathetic to much of the Republican platform, but aren't Republicans because many loud Republicans come off as hostile toward scientists. 

[GregorMendel]

Seriously guys, I was a Jon Huntsman fanboy purely based on his support of evolution, not to mention his legitimate knowledge of China (spoke mandarin, not crazy).

Much love,

Gregor Mendel,
B.S. Biology
almost M.S. Biomedical Science (Biochemistry)
Starting med school next month

[CatholicsAreKewl]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/11/few-conservatives-on-university-campuses

 

This is an interesting, somewhat related article. I don't think it matters whether there are more scientists in either party. I am curious as to why that might be and whether it affects their research in any way.

Edited June 6, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[GregorMendel]

I dont think the politics of a scientist affect their research all that much. Speaking from the life and natural sciences at least, I dont see how your view on government, military action, taxes or immigration would impact a research focus. Certainly there are a few topics which might draw public attention and thus may be politically relevant (stem cells, etc), but the vast majority of research has nothing to do with politics aside from funding initiatives.


Now, religion is another area we might discuss in which scientists may represent a skewed demographic profile, but even that shouldnt affect one's work. I like to hold Francis S Collins, director of the NIH, leader of the Human Genome Project, and evangelical christian, as the highest example of an individual scientist I am most proud of and hope to aspire to :)

[Nihil Obstat]

I wonder if there is a correlation between a scientist's political views, and government funding he receives.

[GregorMendel]

Hahaha after witnessing the funding process at my undergrad (catholic liberal arts university) and my graduate/medical school (private university), I can say that there is absolutely  no bias on any level for any factor of an individual scientist or lab group by any funding organization, governmental or private, aside from relevancy of a project. It truly a "take what you can get" situation at the highest levels of biomedical science. Perhaps the social sciences might be more open to such bias (or prejudice), given the greater number of groups a social scientist could apply for funding from. Its difficult to draw any bias from a decision by the American Cancer Society on whether or not to fund work on phytochemicals of marijuana and melanoma, while it might be easier to conclude something from the Heritage Foundation deciding whether or not to fund work on homosexuals and higher education.

[4588686]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/11/few-conservatives-on-university-campuses

 

This is an interesting, somewhat related article. I don't think it matters whether there are more scientists in either party. I am curious as to why that might be and whether it affects their research in any way.

 

 

It actually matters a lot.  One reason that OFA (the obama campaign) kicked the living crap out of Romney despite the bad economy was that they did brought in a lot of researchers and academics who knew about things like behavioral psychology who knew how to use data effectively et cetera.  

 

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/victory_lab/2012/10/obama_s_secret_weapon_democrats_have_a_massive_advantage_in_targeting_and.html

[4588686]

I wonder if there is a correlation between a scientist's political views, and government funding he receives.

 

 

I'm sure there is a correlation.  There would have to be since so few scientists are republicans.  But I have a lot of friends who do scientific research.  Who work in the labs.  Who write the grants.  But what I assume to be the implication of your question, that politically unsavory scientists have no funding, just doesn't jive if you watch the mechanics of how grants get awarded in the vast majority of cases.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Hasan

[4588686]

 

Almost half of scientists claimed to be Independent.  That category probably includes people who would be sympathetic to much of the Republican platform, but aren't Republicans because many loud Republicans come off as hostile toward scientists. 

 

 

I actually think that they might really be independent.  Most of my friends who have careers in science are pretty apolitical.  If they get angry it's because their really important research got cut because some idiot congressman (or Sarah Palin, also an idiot) doesn't understand the studying fruit flies is actually really important since fruit flies are really important to genetics research.  Then when said congressperson is invariable a conservative they get really turned off by the movement.

 

They may have fiscal or economic views sympathetic to the republican party.  But at least the democrates don't view them as the enemy.  

Edited June 6, 2013 by Hasan

[GregorMendel]

Im not sure what his implication was (although I'd bet a conservative researcher being denied funding by an agency under a liberal administration would be a far more interesting answer), there is no way to know the political affiliation of an individual researcher in the standard grant proposal application, which is why I believe there is no relationship.

[Chestertonian]

A rebuttal:

 

A narrative has developed over the past several years that the Republican Party is anti-science. Recently, thanks to the ignorant remarks about rape made by Rep. Todd Akin, the Democrats have seized the opportunity to remind us that they are the true champions of science in America. But is it really true?

 

No. As we thoroughly detail in our new book, "Science Left Behind," Democrats are willing to throw science under the bus for any number of pet ideological causes – including anything from genetic modification to vaccines.

 

Consider California’s Proposition 37, which would require genetically modified food to carry a warning label. The American Medical Association is opposed because “there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods.” Every major scientific and regulatory agency -- including the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, EPA, FDA, and USDA -- recognizes the importance of genetic modification.

 

Yet, the California Democratic Party has officially endorsed Proposition 37 -- in direct opposition to the recommendation of America’s finest doctors and in contradiction to the scientific consensus. The Republicans endorsed the pro-science position. Did this fact make the news? No.

Digging deeper into the issue, one finds that California Democrats have de facto allied themselves with some of the biggest anti-science quacks in America. Among Prop 37’s most fervent supporters are peddlers of alternative medicine, anti-vaccine groups, and even one crank who claims that genetically modified food causes autism.

 

This anti-science mentality is not a recent development. The Democratic Party has long made common cause with prominent people who thought vaccines caused autism, two in particular who stand out among the rest.

 

The first person is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who published an influential article in Rolling Stone and the progressive website Salon back in 2005 tying vaccines to autism. It was so inaccurate that both publications retracted it several years later. But the damage had already been done. Because of widespread misinformation from celebrities like him, to this day, millions of Americans falsely believe that vaccines cause autism.

The second person is President Barack Obama. On the campaign trail in 2008, Obama said , “We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.”

Wrong. The science was settled in 2002, if not earlier. In truth, the biomedical community never accepted this link, even as the myth gained wider acceptance among the general public. Obama was either severely uninformed about basic medical science or he was playing politics with people’s fears.

 

Once he got into office, his performance on the issue didn’t improve. In 2009, under the auspices of his newly elected administration, the FDA ordered a change from multi-dose to single-dose influenza vaccines because they contained less thimerosal -- the preservative that anti-vaccine activists wrongly believed causes autism. According to Scott Gottlieb, a former deputy commissioner of the FDA, this last minute switch was partially to blame for the vaccine shortages which occurred later that year.

 

Strangely, these anti-science decisions made by prominent Democrats were largely unreported by the news media. Yet, whenever a Republican makes an ignorant, unscientific remark or denies evolution or global warming, that is front-page news -- often for multiple days at a time.

Simultaneously, Democratic journalists, such as Chris Matthews, have the audacity to run news analysis segments asking why Republicans are anti-science -- while blatantly ignoring all of the anti-science shenanigans going on inside their own party. Perhaps it is time Mr. Matthews takes off his blue-tinted sunglasses.

 

We call for an end to the media’s double standard for science reporting.

Indeed, the only reason Democrats are considered the “pro-science” party is because the media, for whatever reason, has decided to give them a free pass on scientific issues. It is time the free pass be revoked.

Dr. Alex B. Berezow is the editor of RealClearScience. Hank Campbell is the founder of Science 2.0. They are authors of the new book Science Left Behind.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/09/10/are_democrats_really_the_pro-science_party_115367.html

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Hahaha after witnessing the funding process at my undergrad (catholic liberal arts university) and my graduate/medical school (private university), I can say that there is absolutely no bias on any level for any factor of an individual scientist or lab group by any funding organization, governmental or private, aside from relevancy of a project. It truly a "take what you can get" situation at the highest levels of biomedical science. Perhaps the social sciences might be more open to such bias (or prejudice), given the greater number of groups a social scientist could apply for funding from. Its difficult to draw any bias from a decision by the American Cancer Society on whether or not to fund work on phytochemicals of marijuana and melanoma, while it might be easier to conclude something from the Heritage Foundation deciding whether or not to fund work on homosexuals and higher education.

If anything I am referring to a possible connection in the opposite direction.

[Basilisa Marie]

I actually think that they might really be independent.  Most of my friends who have careers in science are pretty apolitical.  If they get angry it's because their really important research got cut because some idiot congressman (or Sarah Palin, also an idiot) doesn't understand the studying fruit flies is actually really important since fruit flies are really important to genetics research.  Then when said congressperson is invariable a conservative they get really turned off by the movement.

 

They may have fiscal or economic views sympathetic to the republican party.  But at least the democrates don't view them as the enemy.  

 

That's what I mean - even if a scientist theoretically might be fiscally conservative, pro-life, small government, pro gun rights, etc, the strong anti-science messages some of the vocal members of the party send could be a big turn off.  Why should we expect more middle of the road scientists to be Republican if some who actually hold Republican opinions about issues are turned off? 

 

It still blows my mind that Congress' science commission doesn't have some kind of requirement of actually having some kind of science background. Or, saving that (I don't think many scientists are running for office), have some kind of required background prep work. But that also goes back to the general hostility toward academic scientific research by many loud Republicans.   

 

Seems like the question of scientists being Republican is a bit like asking why more Fundamentalists or Evangelicals aren't Democrats. It isn't because of some big political conspiracy.  It's because there are fundamentally hostile attitudes towards that attribute within the party.