Reply With Quote
You should actually go read that poll.
Lab Politics
Most scientists in this country are Democrats. That's a problem.
It is no secret that the ranks of scientists and engineers in the United States include dismal numbers of Hispanics and African-Americans, but few have remarked about another significantly underrepresented group: Republicans.
No, this is not the punch line of a joke. A Pew Research Center Poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans; 55 percent are Democrats, 32 percent are independent, and the rest "don't know" their affiliation.[click for link to original study-RG]
This immense imbalance has political consequences. When President Obama appears Wednesday on Discovery Channel's Mythbusters (9 p.m. ET), he will be there not just to encourage youngsters to do their science homework but also to reinforce the idea that Democrats are the party of science and rationality. And why not? Most scientists are already on his side. Imagine if George W. Bush had tried such a stunt—every major newspaper in the country would have run an op-ed piece by some Nobel Prize winner asking how the guy who prohibited stem-cell research and denied climate change could have the gall to appear on a program that extols the power of scientific thinking.
Yet, partisan politics aside, why should it matter that there are so few Republican scientists? After all, it's the scientific facts that matter, and facts aren't blue or red.
Well, that's not quite right. Consider the case of climate change, of which beliefs are astonishingly polarized according to party affiliation and ideology. A March 2010 Gallup poll showed that 66 percent of Democrats (and 74 percent of liberals) say the effects of global warming are already occurring, as opposed to 31 percent of Republicans. Does that mean that Democrats are more than twice as likely to accept and understand the scientific truth of the matter? And that Republicans are dominated by scientifically illiterate yahoos and corporate shills willing to sacrifice the planet for short-term economic and political gain?
Or could it be that disagreements over climate change are essentially political—and that science is just carried along for the ride? For 20 years, evidence about global warming has been directly and explicitly linked to a set of policy responses demanding international governance regimes, large-scale social engineering, and the redistribution of wealth. These are the sort of things that most Democrats welcome, and most Republicans hate. No wonder the Republicans are su ious of the science.
Think about it: The results of climate science, delivered by scientists who are overwhelmingly Democratic, are used over a period of decades to advance a political agenda that happens to align precisely with the ideological preferences of Democrats. Coincidence—or causation? Now this would be a good case for Mythbusters.
During the Bush administration, Democrats discovered that they could score political points by accusing Bush of being anti-science. In the process, they seem to have convinced themselves that they are the keepers of the Enlightenment spirit, and that those who disagree with them on issues like climate change are fundamentally irrational. Meanwhile, many Republicans have come to believe that mainstream science is corrupted by ideology and amounts to no more than politics by another name. Attracted to fringe scientists like the small and vocal group of climate skeptics, Republicans appear to be alienated from a mainstream scientific community that by and large doesn't share their political beliefs. The climate debacle is only the most con uous example of these debilitating tendencies, which play out in issues as diverse as nuclear waste disposal, protection of endangered species, and regulation of pharmaceuticals.
How would a more politically diverse scientific community improve this situation? First, it could foster greater confidence among Republican politicians about the legitimacy of mainstream science. Second, it would cultivate more informed, creative, and challenging debates about the policy implications of scientific knowledge. This could help keep difficult problems like climate change from getting prematurely straitjacketed by ideology. A more politically diverse scientific community would, overall, support a healthier relationship between science and politics.
American society has long tended toward pragmatism, with a great deal of respect for the value and legitimacy not just of scientific facts, but of scientists themselves. For example, survey data show that the scientific community enjoys the trust of 90 percent of Americans—more than for any other ins ution, including the Supreme Court and the military. Yet this exceptional status could well be forfeit in the escalating fervor of national politics, given that most scientists are on one side of the partisan divide. If that public confidence is lost, it would be a huge and perhaps unrecoverable loss for a democratic society.
It doesn't seem plausible that the dearth of Republican scientists has the same causes as the under-representation of women or minorities in science. I doubt that teachers are telling young Republicans that math is too hard for them, as they sometimes do with girls; or that socioeconomic factors are making it difficult for Republican students to succeed in science, as is the case for some ethnic minority groups. The idea of mentorship programs for Republican science students, or scholarship programs to attract Republican students to scientific fields, seems laughable, if delightfully ironic.[emphasis mine-RG]
Yet there is clearly something going on that is as yet barely acknowledged, let alone understood. As a first step, leaders of the scientific community should be willing to investigate and discuss the issue. They will, of course, be loath to do so because it threatens their most cherished myths of a pure science insulated from dirty partisanship. In lieu of any real effort to understand and grapple with the politics of science, we can expect calls for more "science literacy" as public confidence begins to wane. But the issue here is legitimacy, not literacy. A democratic society needs Republican scientists.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Why do Republicans hate science? I am genuinely puzzled, but I have my own thoughts.
I think that conservatives generally suck at examining underlying assumptions, and tend to be much more dogmatic. Both of these traits do not portend success in science. That is simply my take on it.
You should actually go read that poll.
What makes you think he hasn't?
That article sucks, to be frank. Another poster on slate.com (or maybe salon.com, the opposite site of the one that posted the article) clowned that author pretty well.
And? I saw that picture on google images too.
LOL, I am just kidding WC. You can type complete sentences, it is not too far fetched to think you would pass that test.
It was a pretty simple test, though H2O wasn't an option for greenhouse gasses. How disappointing.
I did. It was mildly interesting.
Is there a particular facet you want to address?
Why did you link it then and start the thread?
link?
I thought it was interesting to see how few scientists identified with being Republican.
It could just be my confirmation bias though. I don't think Republicans in general are very scientifically literate.
I thought it was an interesting topic of discussion.
Why else would I start a thread?
(other than satire on other threads occasionally, heh)
I think it has more to do with life style choices. I'll bet one could find more careers that are dominated by republicans. that doesn't mean democrats don't have an ap ude for it.
Would you agree or disagree that more abortion doctors are democrat rather than republican?
My wife being a scientist - Ph.D. Biochemistry (A&M) - now a professor - I can verify that, yes, most scientists are Democrats, and most are also liberal.
What is not mentioned is the vast majority (the ones I have known over the past 20 years) are a-political to utterly disinterested; most vote - but as my wife's graduate mentor told me: "I vote Democrat because it makes me feel good about myself. I don't have time to deal with people's problems - so I vote for the party that promises to."
I asked him if the actual outcome mattered to him? Didn't want to think about it.
Also, just because scientists are by and large liberal Democrats DOESN'T mean that they use the scientific, logical, rational method of thought outside of their labs - in their daily lives. They don't.
The vast majority of my wife's students are Democrats. I can confirm THEY are not scientifically literate.
Oh, and I know lots of people who are Republican, are scientifically minded, if not avid scientists, but were not included in this survey:
Medical Doctors.
I think you've identified a big part of the equation. Care to elaborate?
No doubt. Investment bankers?
Agreed.
Not sure where you're going with that one.
Since RG believes that only 7% of scientists and engineers are conservatives, and that the "rich" are only that way because they are winners in "life's lottery", it only stands to reason he is a devout AGW cultist.
Someone needs to alert the vast majority of the Texas A&M engineering school.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
