News 6% of AAAS scientists are republican - is this survey credible?

[Jasongreat]

Like Ayn Rand accurately pointed out, conservatives hook up ideas that are not "right", but "old" or "traditional". Calling them anti-science really isn't an overstatement. Science, after all, is all about progress and moving forward.

It might help to look at history, the enlightenment was a conservative movement. Although in those days they were considered liberal(classical liberal), the players were very conservative when it came to the scope of government. Imo, they believed freedom of science, or any other freedom for that matter, came from restricting the size and scope of government, how can we have scientific freedom when government controls what science does or can do? Today the descriptions of conservative(republican) and liberal(democrat) have been convoluted. Both parties believe in big government, the right feels that government should control our morality, the left feels government should control everything else, even our freedom. If government is big, our freedoms are small, if our freedoms are small, our chances of discovery are also small. As you pointed out conservatives stand for old or traditional, but that is only true as far as government goes, there are plenty of conservatives who look for scientific advancement, they just don't believe that government is the way to get there. Belief in " an invisible buddy" has nothing to do with it. I would say that belief in an all powerful and overreaching government is far more detrimental to scientific advancement, than belief in a god. As I pointed out earlier though, neither party is conservative any more, heck the republican party claims their roots came from the reconstruction period. That is definitely not a party stuck on old and traditional, that is a party that reformed the old and traditional, into the new all powerful central government. There are plenty of truly conservative 'republican' scientists and laymen, as there are truly conservative 'democrat' scientists and laymen, the problem is there are more pro government (non-conservative) 'republican' and 'democrats', who get in the way of discovery. Once 94% of AAAS scientists are conservative, we might actually go some where, imo.

 

[nismaratwork]

It might help to look at history, the enlightenment was a conservative movement. Although in those days they were considered liberal(classical liberal), the players were very conservative when it came to the scope of government. Imo, they believed freedom of science, or any other freedom for that matter, came from restricting the size and scope of government, how can we have scientific freedom when government controls what science does or can do? Today the descriptions of conservative(republican) and liberal(democrat) have been convoluted. Both parties believe in big government, the right feels that government should control our morality, the left feels government should control everything else, even our freedom. If government is big, our freedoms are small, if our freedoms are small, our chances of discovery are also small. As you pointed out conservatives stand for old or traditional, but that is only true as far as government goes, there are plenty of conservatives who look for scientific advancement, they just don't believe that government is the way to get there. Belief in " an invisible buddy" has nothing to do with it. I would say that belief in an all powerful and overreaching government is far more detrimental to scientific advancement, than belief in a god. As I pointed out earlier though, neither party is conservative any more, heck the republican party claims their roots came from the reconstruction period. That is definitely not a party stuck on old and traditional, that is a party that reformed the old and traditional, into the new all powerful central government. There are plenty of truly conservative 'republican' scientists and laymen, as there are truly conservative 'democrat' scientists and laymen, the problem is there are more pro government (non-conservative) 'republican' and 'democrats', who get in the way of discovery. Once 94% of AAAS scientists are conservative, we might actually go some where, imo.

Ehhh... At that time most art and the like was funded by seemingly "private" moves, but really a lot of it came about as a function of each of those private entities being their own little government or city-state. The landscape has changed so radically, that I'm not sure it's a valid comparison. All you've really said here is that things you like are conservative, being good in the first place, then defined what conservative means to you... and? Your conclusion is that if you literally reversed places in the AAAS would suddenly overcome the limitations you percieve? Frankly, I don't think the AAAS has a lot to do with individual discovery and progress anyway, but let's take this:

Your view of conservative = less government interference -> DISCOVERY! *jazz hands*
ok...
What about stem cell research? You have the government keeping us from "going some where," for years and hindering research on an admitted issue of religious crisis. I must have also missed the huge conservative push to fund programs that by their very definition are hit-or-miss... scientific research and education. Maybe you want to cite something to support your last statement... the part about the enlightenment is just... who cares. I don't care to get into detail about the nature of patronage at that time which simply doesn't exist in the same way, and can't work given the population.

Or, to put it screamingly obviously: It's a few years since the enlightenment, and the world has changed.

 

[Vanadium 50]

LOL, now that's funny.

We aim to please.

It's an important point, though. There is a difference in my view between organizations with a political agenda, like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and ones that have a political slant purely because of their demographic makeup: the Berkeley Chess Club.

I don't know which is more left-leaning, honestly. According to the article reference in the OP, the AAAS has a 9 to 1 ratio of (self-identified) Democrats to Republicans. What's the ratio for typical university campuses?

Klein and Western claim it's 8 to 1 at Stanford and 10 to 1 at Berkeley. The 1999 NAASS study claims it's a bit more than 5 to 1 nationwide.

 

[nismaratwork]

We aim to please.

It's an important point, though. There is a difference in my view between organizations with a political agenda, like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and ones that have a political slant purely because of their demographic makeup: the Berkeley Chess Club.



Klein and Western claim it's 8 to 1 at Stanford and 10 to 1 at Berkeley. The 1999 NAASS study claims it's a bit more than 5 to 1 nationwide.

So... 9-1 is smack in the middle of the collegiate norm. Huh... I didn't know that.

 

[ThomasT]

Also characterizing one party as anti-science and the other as pro-science is probably a bit too broad, ...

Possibly so. It's just a guess, an impression.

... and the situation can break down when you examine specific issues. For example, on the topic of federal funding for stem cell research (which 93% of scientists favor), Democrats (71%) are much more likely to take the "pro-science" stance than Republicans (38%). However, on the issue of using animals for scientific research (a practice supported by 93% of scientists), Republicans (62%) are more likely to take the "pro-science" stance than Democrats (48%).

Regarding the former (stem cell research), I would guess that the apparent pro-life (due to religious fanaticism??) orientation of a majority of Republicans is the determining factor. Wrt the latter (using animals for research), I would guess that the apparent egalitarian (due to secular fanaticism??) orientation of a majority of Democrats is the determining factor (ie., are, say, chimps really so different from us that we can justify subjecting them to torturous pain and imprisonment simply because they're technologically challenged and communicate nonverbally?).

I'm supposing that those particular statistics have less to do with the extent of either Republicans' or Democrats' affinity toward science than with their affinity toward certain 'moral' values.

So, I still agree with Ivan Seeking that the Republican party can be characterized as, effectively, the anti-science party -- assuming that it is, in fact, populated by significantly more religious wingnuts than the Democratic party, and also assuming that religious fanaticism (or wingnuttiness) is generally incompatible with scientific fanaticism.

This situation seems to me to have changed during my lifetime. When I was younger, if I recall correctly, I think that the Democratic party was looked on as a bit more religiously wingnutty than the Republican party. But I could be mistaken about that.

 

[russ_watters]

So, I still agree with Ivan Seeking that the Republican party can be characterized as, effectively, the anti-science party -- assuming that it is, in fact, populated by significantly more religious wingnuts than the Democratic party, and also assuming that religious fanaticism (or wingnuttiness) is generally incompatible with scientific fanaticism.

As was pointed out earlier, there are other types of anti-science fanaticism that are favored by liberals, the most obvious being various types of environmental fanaticism, anti-technology fanaticism and anti-corporate fanaticism. For example, religious fanatics keep down stem cell research, but environmental fanatics keep down clean energy research and exploitation (perversely). Which one is actually more widespread, I don't know, but both are substantial problems.

 

[Al68]

There is a difference in my view between organizations with a political agenda, like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and ones that have a political slant purely because of their demographic makeup: the Berkeley Chess Club.

Yep, that was my point.

 

[nismaratwork]

As was pointed out earlier, there are other types of anti-science fanaticism that are favored by liberals, the most obvious being various types of environmental fanaticism, anti-technology fanaticism and anti-corporate fanaticism. For example, religious fanatics keep down stem cell research, but environmental fanatics keep down clean energy research and exploitation (perversely). Which one is actually more widespread, I don't know, but both are substantial problems.

This is true... annoying, but true. I think if one side or the other relented we'd have some space to prove the other side's fears real, but manageable. A decade or two ago I'd have said the conservatives and their tolerance of law influenced by religion... now... no new nuclear reactors in that time... kinda hard to blame this on one side or the other. In fact, the problem of paralysis when it comes to major steps forward in science strikes me as being utterly non-partisan.

I didn't notice a political affiliation when people were convinced that the LHC was going to suck us all into a portal to hell, just like Doom! It seems to me that as long as there's ignorance, we're going to burn coal and think we're saving ourselves from doom of nuclear power... *sigh*.

 

[theunbubba]

Are you sure that you aren't thinking of the Union of Concerned Scientists? The AAAS seems to me to be no more left-leaning than a typical university campus. They are most famous for publishing Science.

That's kind of like saying they are a little pregnant.

 

[theunbubba]

You cited a poll that's about political orientation and belief in ghosts.

Here's one about voting registration and churchgoing behavior:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/24319/religion-powerful-predictor-vote-midterm-elections.aspx

If it's true that the Republican party is populated by significantly more religious wingnuts than the Democratic party, then it shouldn't be surprising that Republicans tend to be "anti-science", as Ivan Seeking suggested.

Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly. Most liberals I know are in liberal arts courses, that have about as much to do with understanding science, as throwing a rock through a window has with a cyclotron.
In my experience liberals cling to their bongs, welfare checks and JFK photo's, singing kumbaya and dreaming of rainbows.
Unless they are in some lecture hall, with some other snoots trying to look intellectua,l while not knowing how to work a simple pythagorean equation.

 

[theunbubba]

LOL, now that's funny.

I don't know which is more left-leaning, honestly. According to the article reference in the OP, the AAAS has a 9 to 1 ratio of (self-identified) Democrats to Republicans. What's the ratio for typical university campuses?

Yeah, they don't realize they just told on themselves. libs...

 

[Char. Limit]

Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly. Most liberals I know are in liberal arts courses, that have about as much to do with understanding science, as throwing a rock through a window has with a cyclotron.
In my experience liberals cling to their bongs, welfare checks and JFK photo's, singing kumbaya and dreaming of rainbows.
Unless they are in some lecture hall, with some other snoots trying to look intellectua,l while not knowing how to work a simple pythagorean equation.

You'll find a lot of liberals on this board ready to prove you wrong, you know.

 

[theunbubba]

With respect to which party is more favorable to science, the Pew study cited by Slate also examines the public's opinion toward science. Here are some interesting results:

"Even as overall public views have remained fairly stable, partisan differences over spending on scientific research have widened considerably. This mirrors a wider partisan gap in views about federal spending in other areas as well.

In April 2001, there was little difference in partisan opinions about spending on science. Roughly four-in-ten independents (43%), Democrats (38%) and Republicans (37%) favored increased spending. Today, about half (51%) of Democrats favor increasing spending on science, up 13 points from 2001; among Republicans, just 25% support increasing the budget for scientific research, down 12 points over the same period. Opinion among independents has changed little (40% favor increased spending today, 43 % in 2001)."​

Obviously, these changes may not reflect changes in pro-science and anti-science issues but instead be a larger part of the debate on the size of government, government spending, and the deficit.

Also characterizing one party as anti-science and the other as pro-science is probably a bit too broad, and the situation can break down when you examine specific issues. For example, on the topic of federal funding for stem cell research (which 93% of scientists favor), Democrats (71%) are much more likely to take the "pro-science" stance than Republicans (38%). However, on the issue of using animals for scientific research (a practice supported by 93% of scientists), Republicans (62%) are more likely to take the "pro-science" stance than Democrats (48%).

The drop in support for these studies among republicans, is because of studies like the one in Africa studying genital washing. Things like that pure waste of money are why you get the result you did.

 

[theunbubba]

You'll find a lot of liberals on this board ready to prove you wrong, you know.

There are always exceptions to societal rules.

 

[nismaratwork]

There are always exceptions to societal rules.

...Especially when you make up those rules from whole cloth!

 

[nismaratwork]

The drop in support for these studies among republicans, is because of studies like the one in Africa studying genital washing. Things like that pure waste of money are why you get the result you did.

Cite and support, please.

 

[theunbubba]

Cite and support, please.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/sep/stimulus-funds-african-genital-washing-study

And it's not just that. It's a study to prepare the ground for another study, both of which are blatantly stupid on the face of them.

edit:
Here's a link to more:
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=054487a3-ff6e-4df9-a025-48de764abe55

It's intermixed with other pork spending, but you get the idea.

 

[nismaratwork]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/sep/stimulus-funds-african-genital-washing-study

And it's not just that. It's a study to prepare the ground for another study, both of which are blatantly stupid on the face of them.

edit:
Here's a link to more:
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=054487a3-ff6e-4df9-a025-48de764abe55

It's intermixed with other pork spending, but you get the idea.

I do, thanks very much.