Where Are the Republican Scientists?
Among a sample of 2,533 scientists who took a Pew Research Center survey in July of 2009, 55% self-identified as Democrats, 32% as Independents, and a paltry 6% as Republicans.
Daniel Sarewitz writing at Slate believes these statistics indicate the growing politicization of science, a major threat to a free and democratic society. Take the national debate over climate change, for example:
[C]ould 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 suspicious 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?
Americans, by and large, tend to trust the institution of science, Sarewitz asserts, but the increasingly partisan nature of scientists could have calamitous effects on the public's confidence down the road.
If that public confidence [in science] is lost, it would be a huge and perhaps unrecoverable loss for a democratic society…[T]he issue here is legitimacy, not literacy. A democratic society needs Republican scientists.
So how do we get more Republicans to enter scientific fields? Before we can answer that question, we must first address why there are so few Republican scientists to begin with. The Economist blog “Democracy in America” offers three hypotheses:
The first is that scientists are hostile towards Republicans, which scares young Republicans away from careers in science. The second is that Republicans are hostile towards science, and don't want to go into careers in science. The third is that young people who go into the sciences tend to end up becoming Democrats, due to factors inherent in the practice of science or to peer-group identification with other scientists.
Do one or more of these hypotheses explain the phenomenon of the virtually non-existent Republican scientist, or is there something else going on here? And what, if anything, should be done about it? Do we need affirmative action for Republicans?
- Comment (65)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments :
Re: Where Are the Republican Scientists?
For the most part scientists are funded through the government. Therefore, it would be in the scientists best interest for the government to be large and spend a lot of money on their research. A rational self-interested scientist would seek a larger government.
I'm sure there are a fair number of scientists employed by private companies that tend to lean to the right, but are dwarfed by the number who get their money from the state. Just a theory.
I believe I read somewhere that engineers are significantly more conservative than liberal, but I could be wrong.
Jul '10
Re: Where Are the Republican Scientists?
"Republicans are hostile to science"? That old canard again.
Just because some of us think the theories of a 19th-Century gentleman naturalist should be subject to debate doesn't mean we're hostile to science. Nor does our skepticism with regard to the highly-politicized science of climate change.
So scratch that argument.
I would suggest this: though scientists may be the hard-hats of academia, they are, still , largely academics.
So the question, then, is this: why are academics predominantly Leftists?
Edited on Dec 17, 2010 at 12:29pmJul '10
Re: Where Are the Republican Scientists?
Joshua Riddle, Intern: For the most part scientists are funded through the government. Therefore, it would be in the scientists best interest for the government to be large and spend a lot of money on their research. A rational self-interested scientist would seek a larger government.
I'm sure there are a fair number of scientists employed by private companies that tend to lean to the right, but are dwarfed by the number who get their money from the state. Just a theory.
I believe I read somewhere that engineers are significantly more conservative than liberal, but I could be wrong. · Dec 17 at 12:25pm
Funding and peer pressure in science are the subjects of Ben Stein's documentary, "No Intelligence Allowed".
Those who do not toe the line are not only de-funded, their careers are often destroyed.
May '10
Re: Where Are the Republican Scientists?
Some more thoughts to ponder:
1. The scientists the poll surveyed were all members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. So the results should have referred to 'members of the AAAS' and not 'scientists'. Nonprofit international organizations follow O'Sullivan's Law quite consistently.
2. Most scientists spend a lot of time on college campuses not really thinking about politics. However, the general liberal worldview dominates everything.
3. Many scientists are nonbelievers and they are turned off by the Christian Right.
4. What Josh said. Scientists' interaction with government generally consists of collecting money from it. Why bite the hand that feeds you?
May '10
Re: Where Are the Republican Scientists?
I agree that government funding and peer pressure are factors. Even corporate researchers must deal with federal regulators.
Another reason may be the length of schooling. Don't most professional scientists get Masters and Doctorates? If so, it's that much longer they're among liberal professors and that much more time spent in the clouds of theory. Scientists with non-research jobs, like those who form the backbone of oil companies or mix chemicals for daily use, tend to be more conservative.
But I don't sense that researchers are losing any legitimacy. Aside from anthropogenic global warming, the average American is aware of few other examples of bad science and completely apathetic to lab politics. Science is still held up on a pedestal as if it was immune to the failings of human nature.
May '10
Re: Where Are the Republican Scientists?
I think what Joshua says is true. Many scientists are dependent upon government grants, hence scientists are incentivized to endorse greater government authority. According to the Pew survey,
"While scientists are generally upbeat about the state of their profession, they do see several obstacles to conducting high-quality basic research. As might be expected, by far the biggest impediment is a lack of funding; more than eight-in-ten say this is a very serious (46%) or a serious (41%) impediment to research."
The government helps finance their research.
In a similar vein, Ludwig von Mises wrote a short book called The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality (its free) in which he explains why most intellectuals have contempt for capitalism. Mises argues in part that intellectuals and businessmen are peers: they grow up and are educated in close proximity and mingle amongst each other. Yet businessmen earn much more than intellectuals, giving intellectuals the impression that they and their work are under-appreciated. As a result, intellectuals tend to have few qualms over government regulation and supervision of businessmen.
May '10
Re: Where Are the Republican Scientists?
The answer really is "all of the above". I work in academia, and our kids do as well; one is a scientist, and she is the most left-minded in the family.
Engineers are oriented toward hard solutions in the real world. Research scientists are thinking Blue Sky,. Truth, and Beauty. The more practical mindset is attracted to the more practical pursuit, and they do work mostly for private concerns. There is also, indeed, a strong peer pressure against the Great Unwashed, and a positive bias toward turning control of the world over to credentialed Experts. And indeed AAAS is a secular leftist organization.
But there is a lot of self-selection that goes on here. Those who get sick of the nonsense and herd mentality get out, and don't participate in the surveys.
My concern is that irresponsible and blatantly political behavior by scientists, particularly with regard to the green movement, peer-review, and openness in verifiable research results reporting, is inevitably going to sap the respect the public has for actual science. And then we will have to find new honest brokers.
Popular ignorance about the philosophy of science is a major problem.
May '10
Re: Where Are the Republican Scientists?
Plus, as John Dietl argues, these are members of the AAAS. They are not economists, so the likelihood of these individuals being ignorant of economics is greater.
Edited on Dec 17, 2010 at 1:00pmRe: Where Are the Republican Scientists?
Aaron Miller:
But I don't sense that researchers are losing any legitimacy. Aside from anthropogenic global warming, the average American is aware of few other examples of bad science and completely apathetic to lab politics. Science is still held up on a pedestal as if it was immune to the failings of human nature. · Dec 17 at 12:47pm
Do you buy into Sarewitz's argument that one-way partisanship in science is bad for democracy?
May '10
Re: Where Are the Republican Scientists?
Diane Ellis, Ed.
Do you buy into Sarewitz's argument that one-way partisanship in science is bad for democracy?
It would only be bad if the arguments the scientists implicitly use to justify their democratic leanings were unsound.
Edited on Dec 17, 2010 at 1:06pmOct '10
Re: Where Are the Republican Scientists?
Diane Ellis, Ed.
Aaron Miller:
But I don't sense that researchers are losing any legitimacy. Aside from anthropogenic global warming, the average American is aware of few other examples of bad science and completely apathetic to lab politics. Science is still held up on a pedestal as if it was immune to the failings of human nature. · Dec 17 at 12:47pm
Do you buy into Sarewitz's argument that one-way partisanship in science is bad for democracy? · Dec 17 at 12:58pm
When the science in question starts raising political and/or moral questions, then yes that one-way partisanship is bad. When we're talking about cloning, climate change, embryonic stem cells, having the vast majority of the scientists in question be Democrats makes it difficult for the laymen who are supposed to be making informed political decisions on these issues to have access to opposing arguments.
On the other hand, when the science in question is astrophysics I don't think it matters what the political leanings of the academics are.
Aug '10
Re: Where Are the Republican Scientists?
Let's ask Larry Summers.
Nov '10
Re: Where Are the Republican Scientists?
I just spent a few minutes perusing the website for the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Their positions appear to be largely left of center, and they've published a particularly hotheaded statement about Michael Mann (of Penn State, Hockey Stick guy) being investigated because of his involvement in the Climategate scandal.That should really tell you all you need to know about this 'scientific' organization.
It's axiomatic that organizations that are not explicitly conservative tend to either start off as left-wing or become left-wing over time. What we appear to have here is a lefty organization with a sciency-sounding name and mission statement. And, son of a gun, most of them are Democrats.
Just think about it for a second; six percent? Does that really seem plausible? It sounds ridiculous to me.
May '10
Re: Where Are the Republican Scientists?
Diane Ellis, Ed.
Do you buy into Sarewitz's argument that one-way partisanship in science is bad for democracy?
Two considerations come immediately to mind. First, does an ideological imbalance often prevent valid research from being conducted? Second, what is the impact on the availability and quality of peer reviews for research that is conducted?
Communicating scientific findings to the non-scientific community seems like a separate problem. Popular media can distort findings, regardless.
I'll let Ricochet's scientists have the last word on that, but my inclination is to say it's roughly equivalent to the Left's domination of the arts throughout history and throughout the world. Certainly, that dominance has serious political and cultural implications, but is it a temporary or universal (probably irreversible) trend?
Like artists, researchers are attracted by the Left's libertine take on exploration and invention. In other words, the easier path is the one with no moral limits or practical constraints.
There are many scientists in my extended family. Those involved in research are/were less conservative.
Dec '10
Re: Where Are the Republican Scientists?
I agree that they probably tend to be leftists because that's their bread and butter - government grants. Also, for some reason scientists tend to be more secular or atheist, which also lends itself to the left.
But the article is dead-on: The increasing politicization of science is going to ruin it. Until recently, people trusted science because, by its very nature (empirical evidence, etc) it is non-partisan. Nowadays, though, leftist climate researchers trot out computer models and claim that is science to prove their point. They are willing to do this because on the left, it's okay to lie in pursuit of the greater good.
They do the same thing with second-hand smoke. They take a biased view of some data, extrapolate out some gigantically large number and call those deaths "secondhand-smoke-related," regardless of the real truth of it, including other contributing factors. Again, that's not science, in truth.
Real science created an alternative to embryonic stem cell research a year or two ago, solving the moral problem of killing embryos. Yet they STILL call for killing embryos because their true agenda is elsewhere.
They use science however it benefits them.
Aug '10
Re: Where Are the Republican Scientists?
As both the "anonymous" and "academic" parts of my handle indicate, this is an issue I take seriously. Since this most recent round of discussion has focused on the STEM (ie, hard science) fields, it leaves out the telling fact that, bad as they are, STEM fields are much less ideologically uniform than the humanities and social sciences, most of which are about 20:1 in analyses of party registration data. This implies that it's something about academia rather than something specifically about science since the hard science fields experience the disparity less intensely.
Similarly, argumentum ad NIH/NSF misses the fact that Libertarians are as common in some disciplines as Republicans. Since Libertarians are very rare in the general population, it implies that social issues, not fiscal issues drive academia to the left.
I also have to say that when I see conservatives tying the issue to pseudo-science like ID I see this is not only innacurate (plenty of pretty conservative scientists understand why the neo-Darwinian synthesis is a very solid paradigm) as a losing position because when you equate conservatism with know-nothingism you are not making a case for greater inclusion, but greater exclusion.
Aug '10
Re: Where Are the Republican Scientists?
ps, the issue of the ideological position of well-educated professionals is a well-mined area in sociology where it's often known as "new class theory."
for instance, see some work by Steve Brint
New Class and Cumulative trend Explanations of the Liberal Political Attitudes of Professionals
In an Age of Experts
and also Neil Gross
"Why Are Professors Liberal?"
"Explaining Professors' Politics"
Oct '10
Re: Where Are the Republican Scientists?
Late to the party, but I thought this too:
Government funding, and the more individualistic scientists become doctors and engineers. Until the government takes over health-care, that is.
Nov '10
Re: Where Are the Republican Scientists?
I'll echo what a few above have said and say that the science-oriented conservatives tend more towards engineering. Science is all about observation and testing out theories (and it's cooler if your theory is right!). Engineering is taking what the scientists have found out, and making it work - or making good things even better. It's hard to have that engineer's mindset and still believe in Marxism, the welfare state, etc. But as a scientist, that doesn't matter so much - maybe the conditions were just wrong those times - if we change this, it might work...
But an interesting observation I made while in college (as an aerospace engineering major) - those that had the focus on the "space" part (the future rocket scientists) seemed to be more liberal than the "aero" folks like me (airplanes, helicopters). I wonder why that was.
Aug '10
Re: Where Are the Republican Scientists?
Good point.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. How does "argumentum ad NIH/NSF" miss this fact?
Do you take "argumentum ad NIH/NSF" to mean that libertarians should be too disgusted with the centralized funding of science to be scientists, and the fact that they're apparently not is evidence that the centralized funding isn't what disgusts people?
Because I think people are disgusted -- heck, I know full-out lefty scientists who are disgusted with the centralized funding regime. But people do funny things for love.
If pursuing the discipline you love means whoring yourself up with federal grants, it's hard to resist the temptation... I haven't.