Pew Poll: Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans

[Basilisa Marie]

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

 

Right, and he's saying that in his experience, that connection doesn't seem to exist.  :)  

[Nihil Obstat]

Right, and he's saying that in his experience, that connection doesn't seem to exist.   :)

He said that in his experience bias has nothing to do with who gets funding. That is not what I am referring to. I am referring to a suspicion I have that people who are accustomed to receiving government money are, on average, more likely to support politicians who would increase those funding programs. Which is not really something that can be determined anecdotally.

[Basilisa Marie]

 

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

 

 

 

 

California doesn't like GMO foods because it's a super pro-Organic everything state, not because it's Democrat.  

 

At the time, Republicans AND Democrats accepted that vaccines cause Autism.

 

If the Republican party wants the media to stop talking about how ignorant and anti-science they are, maybe their members should stop making comments that betray an ignorance of basic biology or keep asserting that carbon dioxide doesn't affect the atmosphere.  :)  

[Basilisa Marie]

He said that in his experience bias has nothing to do with who gets funding. That is not what I am referring to. I am referring to a suspicion I have that people who are accustomed to receiving government money are, on average, more likely to support politicians who would increase those funding programs. Which is not really something that can be determined anecdotally.

 

Oh, I get what you're saying now.  Mea culpa. :) 

[GregorMendel]

1. Just because I would like to know if I am eating GM food or meat from livestock which have eaten GM food, does not mean I am against those agricultural methods or the industrial application of such technology.

 

2. The quote from then-candidate Obama may be out of context (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/dr_obama_and_dr_mccain.html).

 

I am willing to concede that there may be a media bias against republicans, holding them to a higher level of scrutiny when it comes to the accuracy of their statements in a scientific context, but I only see one party having trouble with a candidate who doesnt at least express doubt about evolution.

[GregorMendel]

He said that in his experience bias has nothing to do with who gets funding. That is not what I am referring to. I am referring to a suspicion I have that people who are accustomed to receiving government money are, on average, more likely to support politicians who would increase those funding programs. Which is not really something that can be determined anecdotally.

 

I dont think this is a great conspiracy, its pretty obvious. Why would a scientist support someone who wanted to inhibit his ability to work, whether by funding or by policy?

 

If you were a farmer, would you vote for a politician who vowed to lower taxes by decreasing farm subsidies? 

 

 

I dont care what party someone represents, I would support the individual who would support me.

[GregorMendel]

For example,

 Can Congress agree on something already before my children's generation cant afford college?! 

 

http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/06/pf/college/student-loans-senate/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

 

[Chestertonian]

I dont think this is a great conspiracy, its pretty obvious. Why would a scientist support someone who wanted to inhibit his ability to work, whether by funding or by policy?

 

If you were a farmer, would you vote for a politician who vowed to lower taxes by decreasing farm subsidies? 

 

 

I dont care what party someone represents, I would support the individual who would support me.

 

Let's say you were a pacifist farmer. The pro-war party also happens to be the pro farm subsidies party. Who would you vote for?

[4588686]

 

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

 

 

 

 

So Republicans and Democrats have roughly the same hostility towards science because California wanted a label on genetically modified foods and an obscure member of the Kennedy family doesn't like vaccines?  Seriously?

 

Genetically Modified food labeling is a niche issue.  And a lot of the hostility to GM foods is more complicated than whether any particular genetically modified crop is safe or not and the movement is not to ban such crops but to make companies alert consumers to the fact the purchasing such products will be supporting corporations that may engage in practices they consider unethical:

 

http://www.policymic.com/articles/33031/monsanto-s-gmo-seeds-are-actively-cultivating-cultural-genocide

 

 

Now, that may be an inane issue but it's not clear what about that is necessarily anti-science as you could be completely accepting of all the science on the issue of GM crops and still have economic, ecological, or ethical objections to the practices of the companies behind these crops.  

 

As for autism, obviously Obama was incorrect in his statement.  That is perfectly legitimate for the media to blast him for and they should.  But that fact that the author is using that one stupid statement, along with an article written by an obscure member of the Kennedy family) to equate the democratic party to the Republican party, which has huge number of constituents AND party leaders and officials who are openly hostile to such basic scientific facts as evolution, the age of the earth, climate change, makes him look like a complete intellectual hack.  

[GregorMendel]

If the anti war party wanted to decrease farm subsidies, relying on my heirarchy of needs, I would vote for the pro war party.

I can only protest if I can feed myself :)

[Chestertonian]

 

 

Yeah, it's a pretty dumb article.

[Chestertonian]

If the anti war party wanted to decrease farm subsidies, relying on my heirarchy of needs, I would vote for the pro war party.

I can only protest if I can feed myself :)

 

Was honestly just curious :)

[Nihil Obstat]

I dont think this is a great conspiracy, its pretty obvious. Why would a scientist support someone who wanted to inhibit his ability to work, whether by funding or by policy?

If you were a farmer, would you vote for a politician who vowed to lower taxes by decreasing farm subsidies?


I dont care what party someone represents, I would support the individual who would support me.

I never said it was a conspiracy. Just that it explains the apparent survey results.

[WillT]

So Republicans and Democrats have roughly the same hostility towards science because California wanted a label on genetically modified foods and an obscure member of the Kennedy family doesn't like vaccines? Seriously?

Genetically Modified food labeling is a niche issue. And a lot of the hostility to GM foods is more complicated than whether any particular genetically modified crop is safe or not and the movement is not to ban such crops but to make companies alert consumers to the fact the purchasing such products will be supporting corporations that may engage in practices they consider unethical:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/33031/monsanto-s-gmo-seeds-are-actively-cultivating-cultural-genocide


Now, that may be an inane issue but it's not clear what about that is necessarily anti-science as you could be completely accepting of all the science on the issue of GM crops and still have economic, ecological, or ethical objections to the practices of the companies behind these crops.

As for autism, obviously Obama was incorrect in his statement. That is perfectly legitimate for the media to blast him for and they should. But that fact that the author is using that one stupid statement, along with an article written by an obscure member of the Kennedy family) to equate the democratic party to the Republican party, which has huge number of constituents AND party leaders and officials who are openly hostile to such basic scientific facts as evolution, the age of the earth, climate change, makes him look like a complete intellectual hack.

How is "accepting the science" behind GMO crops but still arguing against the use of said technology because of "economic or cultural" reasons any less "anti-science" than a conservative who accepts the science behind anthropogenic climate change but argues against it on "economic or cultural" grounds?

[4588686]

How is "accepting the science" behind GMO crops but still arguing against the use of said technology because of "economic or cultural" reasons any less "anti-science" than a conservative who accepts the science behind anthropogenic climate change but argues against it on "economic or cultural" grounds?

 

 

It wouldn't be.  You hear much more outright denials that global warming is real or really caused by human beings than nuanced arguments about the cost vs the benefits of preventing or curbing climate change.