Lab politics

[wautd]

Link

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.

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 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? 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 conspicuous 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 institution, 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.

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.

And there article it's based on (really long so I won't post it here)

Only 6% of US Scientists are Republicans. Not really surprising but damn.

[Alyrium Denryle]

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.

Dealing with these, respectively

1 and 2, poor education will do that. It is not as if we discriminate.

3... ah republicans. You mean the people who dont like funding science, and who dont accept basic scientific theories like the Greenhouse Effect and Evolution? Gee, i wonder why they are not scientists.

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.

That is because we are. Or, more to the point, the democratic party is not the party of science and rationality. It is just the party that contains scientists and people who happen to be rational among its ranks. Honestly most of us are far too liberal for the democratic party. That is why there are a lot of independents. We vote democrat because they are the lsmarter of two stupids.

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.

That is what happens when you try to have your hypocrisy and eat it too.

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?

Yes. That is exactly what it means. The universe is not up for a vote.

And that Republicans are dominated by scientifically illiterate yahoos and corporate shills willing to sacrifice the planet for short-term economic and political gain?

Again, yes.

Or could it be that disagreements over climate change are essentially political—and that science is just carried along for the ride?

No, because people get famous in science by proving other people wrong. Has it occurred to the author that he/she may be mistaking effect for cause? Scientists are democrats because they get fed up with dealing with stupidity from republicans.

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.

Yes. Yes it does. And? Lets say you own a railroad company in 1899, and it is found that your working conditions are harming workers and that there is public outcry. You buy politicians to make sure that this never affects policy, and you select them from the pro-business party. Does it not make sense that the people who want to protect the rights of workers might join another party--one which has not been bought?

Reality does in fact have a well known liberal bias.

These are the sort of things that most Democrats welcome, and most Republicans hate. No wonder the Republicans are suspicious of the science.

What do they want us to do? Change the laws of physics for them?

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.

You have your causal change reversed. A scientist goes from evidence to ideology, not the other way around. You will have a hard time finding a biologist who is against environmental regulation, because we see the effects of pollution first hand. Every. Fucking. Day. Which party will we gravitate toward? The party that ostensibly champions environmental protection? Or the party that gets paid off to look the other way?

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.

He WAS anti-science.

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 conspicuous example of these debilitating tendencies, which play out in issues as diverse as nuclear waste disposal, protection of endangered species, and regulation of pharmaceuticals.

Yes. Let's talk about the regulation of phamaceuticals and the protection of endangered species, do we really want to go there?

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.

The problem is, republicans self-select out of the sciences. It is not as if we exclude them. What? Should we be giving more PhDs to creationists or something?

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.

You assume that it is straight-jacketed by ideology in the first place... It is the republicans not being rational here. They are the ones who try to enforce ideological rigidity everywhere they go.

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.

And it is...

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.

I dont see the issue here. If climate skeptics had anything good to publish, it would be published. No issue there. They just dont have the data to back up their ideas in the literature unless they go to a lay-persons publishing firm.

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.

See, this sentence betrays the author's agenda. There are no Republican Scientists. There are no Democrat Scientists. Their identification as a scientist comes first. Being a scientist is not an occupation. It is an entire lifestyle, we might as well be in a different cultural group. Someone is a scientist who happens to vote for party X.

For fuck's sake, this whole rant of his is is a massive trip in affirmation of the consequence.

[Master_Baerne]

I'm with Alyrium here. Not only does it not matter (in the eyes of rational people) that most scientists are Democrats, it's not a bit surprising. What are scientists supposed to do, vote for the party that caters to fundamentalists?

[wautd]

Nice breakup of the article Alyrium Denryle. I focussed too much one the 6% figure and skimmed too quicky over the article before posting it.

[Spoonist]

Oh no, a majority of economics majors are republicans. Whatever shall we do? Those same economics majors that later will make decisions directly affecting all regardless of political affiliation.

Say it's not so. What? Not about that. Oh, right, scientists. Whatever have scientists ever done for me?


As a side note it would be funny to do a study on how the political affiliations are of diploma mills are distributed...

[Lagmonster]

Just for fun, I conducted my own thoroughly unscientific test of the Science Centres group of Research Branch over at Sir John Carling this morning. Roughly half are Canadian conservatives. If I poll the scientists in my own family, the number rises to a little over 80%.

Problem is, Canadian conservatives are roughly similar to American democrats, and Canadian liberals are nowhere on the American political chart that doesn't include naked people with long hair and drugs. But it's remarkable how it looks when you don't have a "Right, and FAR RIGHT" political scale to examine.

[Ryan Thunder]

I think its hilarious that instead of realizing that most academics despise Republicans and that he should consider why they despise Republicans, he concludes that there aren't enough Republican academics. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

[AATC-86]

The writer of the article seems to pretend that the world's scientific community is entirely made up of Americans. Because it's not like scientists from other nations pretty much all agree on climate change, evolution e.t.c., despite not being involved in American politics, right?

[Jeremy]

I thought Republicans were traditionally known for supporting such things as nuclear power, manned and unmanned space flight, aeronautical engineering, chemistry, geology, adult stem cell research, radar, etc. Anything to do with the military and oil exploration.

[Ryan Thunder]

The writer of the article seems to pretend that the world's scientific community is entirely made up of Americans. Because it's not like scientists from other nations pretty much all agree on climate change, evolution e.t.c., despite not being involved in American politics, right?

I assumed he was simply talking about the American scientific community.

[AATC-86]

The writer of the article seems to pretend that the world's scientific community is entirely made up of Americans. Because it's not like scientists from other nations pretty much all agree on climate change, evolution e.t.c., despite not being involved in American politics, right?

I assumed he was simply talking about the American scientific community.

I got the impression he/she postulated that Global Warming-warnings could be a product of American scientists being Democrats, ignoring the fact that scientists from all over the world are concerned by it.

[LionElJonson]

The writer of the article seems to pretend that the world's scientific community is entirely made up of Americans. Because it's not like scientists from other nations pretty much all agree on climate change, evolution e.t.c., despite not being involved in American politics, right?

I assumed he was simply talking about the American scientific community.

I got the impression he/she postulated that Global Warming-warnings could be a product of American scientists being Democrats, ignoring the fact that scientists from all over the world are concerned by it.

Not just American politics, but left-leaning politics the world over. Personally, I think it's probably a bit more complex than that, and probably involves a feedback loop between left-leaning scientists (who benefit from grant money and prestige), left-leaning environmentalist lobby groups and activists (who are after power, and scareing people is a classic way to acquire that), left-leaning politicians (ditto), and the left-leaning media (because doom and gloom makes ratings).

[Alyrium Denryle]

Not just American politics, but left-leaning politics the world over. Personally, I think it's probably a bit more complex than that, and probably involves a feedback loop between left-leaning scientists (who benefit from grant money and prestige), left-leaning environmentalist lobby groups and activists (who are after power, and scareing people is a classic way to acquire that), left-leaning politicians (ditto), and the left-leaning media (because doom and gloom makes ratings).

That is because you are an idiot.

All scientists benefit from grant money and prestige. The issue is of course that a person who proves a dominant paradigm wrong gets a huge amount of both. The guy who figured out that the earth was a massive self-regulating system went up against the dominant paradigm in the earth and environmental sciences at the time. He is now amazingly famous. Science explicitly rewards innovation and falsification of old ideas. The fact that scientists the world over have tried to falsify something and cant, speaks volumes.

As far as the environmental lobby, we are often at odds with them. Even the biologists, because they propose a lot of Stupid Shit(tm). For example, scientists almost universally support nuclear power, GM crops and tree farming. We are not luddites. If anything, there are problems in corruption within the Department of the Interior.

The people who decide grant funding are self-selecting, and barring funding being cut, or specific legislation, politicians have no ability to affect funding.

As for our media being left-leaning... what rock do you masturbate under?
As for the media,

[LionElJonson]

Not just American politics, but left-leaning politics the world over. Personally, I think it's probably a bit more complex than that, and probably involves a feedback loop between left-leaning scientists (who benefit from grant money and prestige), left-leaning environmentalist lobby groups and activists (who are after power, and scareing people is a classic way to acquire that), left-leaning politicians (ditto), and the left-leaning media (because doom and gloom makes ratings).

That is because you are an idiot.

I'll be magnanimous and allow this to pass without further comment.

All scientists benefit from grant money and prestige. The issue is of course that a person who proves a dominant paradigm wrong gets a huge amount of both. The guy who figured out that the earth was a massive self-regulating system went up against the dominant paradigm in the earth and environmental sciences at the time. He is now amazingly famous. Science explicitly rewards innovation and falsification of old ideas. The fact that scientists the world over have tried to falsify something and cant, speaks volumes.

And whenever anyone tries, they just get shouted down as a "global warming denier", or accused of being in the pocket of big business.

As far as the environmental lobby, we are often at odds with them. Even the biologists, because they propose a lot of Stupid Shit(tm). For example, scientists almost universally support nuclear power, GM crops and tree farming. We are not luddites. If anything, there are problems in corruption within the Department of the Interior.

I never said scientists were luddites, merely that in the case of Global Warming hysteria, they're natural allies, and both are a part of the feedback loop influencing politicians and the media, and being influenced in turn.

The people who decide grant funding are self-selecting, and barring funding being cut, or specific legislation, politicians have no ability to affect funding.

Yes, because the politicians, activists, and lobbyists have no sway over the bureaucracies at all.

As for our media being left-leaning... what rock do you masturbate under?

The one named "reality". The only right-leaning media channel is Fox. All the others lean left. This is a well-known fact.

[Serafina]

Not to mention that the majority of the worlds scientists are NOT "left-leaning".
The main reason why american scienstists tend to be democracts is because the republican party is utterly at odds with reality. That's nothing special, that's the case with all parties at the outer edges of the political spectrum - and the Republicans just happen to be on the extreme right. The democracts are also not really "left", they would pretty much be a center-right party if you transplanted them to Europe.

Lagmonster already pointed out that scientists in Canada tend to be all over the political spectrum. That's simply because there are viable parties both left and right of that spectrum - which is simply not the case in the USA.

But go ahead. Prove your claim that the majority of the worlds scientists are "left-leaning". And use proper definitions, not the distorted ones used in the USA where you get screeched down as a leftists for even the slightest amount of deviation from the far-right.

[LionElJonson]

Not to mention that the majority of the worlds scientists are NOT "left-leaning".
The main reason why american scienstists tend to be democracts is because the republican party is utterly at odds with reality. That's nothing special, that's the case with all parties at the outer edges of the political spectrum - and the Republicans just happen to be on the extreme right. The democracts are also not really "left", they would pretty much be a center-right party if you transplanted them to Europe.

The vast majority of everyone outside of America and living in the First World are left-leaning; it's just that you don't see it that way, because you're probably left-leaning yourself and your biases blind you to this; you register left-leaning biases as normal and simply the way reality is.

[Ryan Thunder]

I suppose you consider yourself a centrist. The world obviously revolves around you, after all.

[Serafina]

The vast majority of everyone outside of America and living in the First World are left-leaning; it's just that you don't see it that way, because you're probably left-leaning yourself and your biases blind you to this; you register left-leaning biases as normal and simply the way reality is.

Got anything other than "you are biased"?
You COMPLETELY ignored my point that the rest of the (western) world has a completely differnet definition of "left" and "right" than the USA.
You utterly ignored my demand for proof and just re-stated your opinion as fact.

I suppose you consider yourself a centrist. The world obviously revolves around you, after all.

*cheers* Now that was a good one

[bobalot]

Why are you guys even humouring LionElJonson? He has made numerous claims and not even bothered to provide evidence for a single fucking one. It's up to this worthless waste of oxygen to prove his claims.


This is not an argument. You are not a mod. Don't make me remind you again. -- Lagmonster

[LionElJonson]

The vast majority of everyone outside of America and living in the First World are left-leaning; it's just that you don't see it that way, because you're probably left-leaning yourself and your biases blind you to this; you register left-leaning biases as normal and simply the way reality is.

Got anything other than "you are biased"?
You COMPLETELY ignored my point that the rest of the (western) world has a completely differnet definition of "left" and "right" than the USA.

No, I didn't; this article was about American politics, so the assumption is that the discussion is framed in the American political spectrum.

You utterly ignored my demand for proof and just re-stated your opinion as fact.

Do you really want me digging up articles about people discarding evidence that contradicts their biases and getting a happy glow when they confirm them? I suppose I can, but I didn't see the point since it's fairly well-known to anyone who's made even a cursory examination about human cognitive biases.

I suppose you consider yourself a centrist. The world obviously revolves around you, after all.

*cheers* Now that was a good one

Nope; I'm a right-winger; my personal politics are a blend of libertarianism (economically and regarding the proper relationship between the citizen and the state), the religious right (on most social issues), and neo-conservatism (on foreign policy).

[Serafina]

No, I didn't; this article was about American politics, so the assumption is that the discussion is framed in the American political spectrum.

You DID ignore my point. And it was a relevant point - when you are talking about scientists all over the world, it's logical to use definitions used all over the world.

Do you really want me digging up articles about people discarding evidence that contradicts their biases and getting a happy glow when they confirm them? I suppose I can, but I didn't see the point since it's fairly well-known to anyone who's made even a cursory examination about human cognitive biases.

I suppose it doesn't occur to you that scientists spend years in order to learn how to handle cognitive bias and work on a rational basis.
And yes, if you are making a statement, some proof for it is entirely appropriate. Of course, proof about the existence of cognitive bias is not what i was asking for. Instead, i was asking for proof that the majority of the worlds scienstists is "left-leaning". Nice strawman.

[LionElJonson]

No, I didn't; this article was about American politics, so the assumption is that the discussion is framed in the American political spectrum.

You DID ignore my point. And it was a relevant point - when you are talking about scientists all over the world, it's logical to use definitions used all over the world.

No, it's logical to use the definitions relevant to the discussion at hand, in the context of the discussion, and that discussion was about American scientists.

Do you really want me digging up articles about people discarding evidence that contradicts their biases and getting a happy glow when they confirm them? I suppose I can, but I didn't see the point since it's fairly well-known to anyone who's made even a cursory examination about human cognitive biases.

I suppose it doesn't occur to you that scientists spend years in order to learn how to handle cognitive bias and work on a rational basis.
And yes, if you are making a statement, some proof for it is entirely appropriate. Of course, proof about the existence of cognitive bias is not what i was asking for. Instead, i was asking for proof that the majority of the worlds scienstists is "left-leaning". Nice strawman.

Okay, here you go. Start reading, grasshopper.

[Carinthium]

Okay, here you go. Start reading, grasshopper.

I'm a right-winger and even I think that was stupid. Did you ignore what he just said?

[LionElJonson]

Okay, here you go. Start reading, grasshopper.

I'm a right-winger and even I think that was stupid. Did you ignore what he just said?

And yes, if you are making a statement, some proof for it is entirely appropriate.

He asked for evidence of cognitive bias and I gave it to him. Rereading it, though, I think I may have missed some of his intention, there; thanks for that. I need more sleep.

And the evidence you were asking for is right in the article, dude; only 6% of scientists are Republicans.

[Bakustra]

Okay, here you go. Start reading, grasshopper.

I'm a right-winger and even I think that was stupid. Did you ignore what he just said?

And yes, if you are making a statement, some proof for it is entirely appropriate.

He asked for evidence of cognitive bias and I gave it to him. Rereading it, though, I think I may have missed some of his intention, there; thanks for that. I need more sleep.

And the evidence you were asking for is right in the article, dude; only 6% of scientists are Republicans.

She, and she asked for global statistics. Not American ones. You shouldn't give people ammunition like that.