

Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem - ccoop
http://www.slate.com/id/2277104/

======
hristov
That is a problem. But it is not a problem for science, it is a problem for
the republican party. For the last ten years they have been so aggressively
pro stupidity that intelligent people are embarrassed to be affiliated with
them, even if their general political beliefs are closer to the republican
than to the democrat side.

~~~
philwelch
Yes! It's not difficult to meet physicists or engineers with conservative
politics. But thoughtful, intelligent conservatism has more or less left the
scene, which means thoughtful, intelligent conservatives don't really have
much representation. (In other words, American politics is deeply suffering at
the loss of William F. Buckley.)

~~~
hugh3
Glenn Reynolds? Admittedly he'd call himself libertarian rather than
conservative, but he's pretty much the closest thing to a latter-day WFB.

On the other hand, despite having one of the most widely-read blogs in the
world you'll almost never see him on TV. Both the right-wing and the left-wing
sides of the media don't like to show conservatives unless they're angry and
fire-breathing. And even the most intelligent of the fire-breathing
conservatives (say, Krauthammer) always come off as non-thoughtful.

------
CWuestefeld
I would claim that there are two factors that lead to the fact that most
scientists are Democrats: the overall lean of universities, and the source of
funding.

First, scientists tend to work in academia. It's well documented that
universities are strongly slanted to the left. It seems reasonable to expect
that when the left-leaning universities are looking to hire, they will tend to
(possibly not intentionally) favor others like themselves.

Second, the government is the largest funder of scientific research. However,
to the extent that the GOP favors a smaller government (and though they say
this, they don't actually do so, but that's a different discussion), this
would make one expect that those against such governmental funding would be
morally bound to find other means of employment.

 _asking how the guy who prohibited stem-cell research_

This isn't what happened. It's incredibly frustrating to me that people
continually read a ban on _federal funding_ to be a ban on research itself.
But it does reinforce my point that the governmental force behind science is
now perceived as _the sole_ force behind science.

 _reinforce the idea that Democrats are the party of science and rationality_

In the science of economics the opposite is true. For example, Democratic
support of minimum wages and other price controls, and especially their
opposition to free trade, fly against the wind of economic science.

~~~
evgen
_I would claim that there are two factors that lead to the fact that most
scientists are Democrats: the overall lean of universities, and the source of
funding._

And the overwhelming anti-science bias within large segments of the Republican
base has nothing to do with it? Yeah, it has just got to be all of those
liberal universities and scientists living off the government teat... You can
delude yourself all you want, but the fact is that most scientists did not
just aimlessly gravitate to the Democratic party; they were chased there by
pitchfork-wielding, bible-thumping, Republicans who sought to "refudiate"
their work (aided in large parts by conservative think tanks that will tell
any lie and spread as much FUD as possible if it helps the short-term
objectives of their corporate backers.)

~~~
orangecat
Mostly true, but conservatives hardly have a monopoly on willful ignorance.
Ask the stereotypical liberal what he thinks of nuclear power or GMO crops,
and you're not likely to get a response based on sound science.

~~~
sachinag
Nuclear power and GMO crops have the same issue for liberals like me: when
they fail, they fail in catastrophic fashion. We've already had Cherynobol and
Monsanto's "Terminator" seeds getting out into the wild. To paraphrase badly,
liberals opposed to both are concerned about Black Swan events.

Your assessment of the risk and that of those of us who are a bit more
"reactionary" are just different, but it doesn't mean that we willfully
misrepresent the science.

~~~
brc
Your position on Nuclear power is completely irrational. One easily prevented,
catastrophic failure with relatively minor flow-on effects is not enough to
fear nuclear power. Regular power sources drip-feed death and destruction on a
regular basis, but because they don't all happen at once, the numbers go
unnoticed.

Similarly, anti-GM crops is circular logic. All food products we eat are long-
since modified from their original native or wild source.

The struggle within science to find a place for the bible within the
geological record has been going on for at least 2 centuries. As such I don't
see the problem being resolved anytime soon. Some of the towering giants of
science have bent themselves out of shape trying to retro-fit biblical tales
into natural history, and that doesn't invalidate their other contributions.
What I'm saying here is that holding an irrational position on evolution
doesn't necessarily devalue a scientists value, as long as they aren't
primarily studying evolutionary-related fields. If the person who comes up
with a cure for cancer doesn't believe in evolution, personally it wouldn't
worry me one bit.

Of all that, I do think the Republicans have a problem with religious beliefs
taking over the party. I don't know of any other major conservative party in
the world which puts things like evolution in question the way they do.
Although I suspect it's not endemic within the party, the moderates within the
party should be doing more to establish a more mainstream view as the primary
position.

~~~
gaulinmp
~Your position on Nuclear power is completely irrational.

Your opening statement is pointlessly inflammatory. He obviously just has a
different risk preference than you do. Why be so antagonistic? Personally I'm
all for having a Nuclear power plant in my back yard, but I would also respect
other's aversion without mockery.

------
verysimple
This kind of rhetoric disturbs me. The burden doesn't lie with the scientific
community, but rather the republican party. Science is not a movement, it's a
set of practices that emphasize observation and empirical analysis to
interpret the world around us.

Science is there for anybody who wants to open their mind to it to enjoy. I'm
sure some republicans have and assuming those numbers are correct, 1 of 3
things happened: 1) they've changed their affiliation over time (becoming
either democrat or unaffiliated), 2) they didn't find what they were looking
for in science and stopped practicing, 3) they're in the current minority.

~~~
Jun8
Although it is true that the scientific method cannot be thought of as
"political" in any sense, I think it's a big mistake to see science as
deriving, almost mechanically from observations. It is done by scientists and
in all ages scientists are affected by non-scientific aspects of their
societies, i.e. traditions, commonly held beliefs, and politics.

Also, not all science is as abstract as, say, mathematics or hunting for dark
matter. Some questions, e.g.: should we perform stem cell research on embryos,
should we eradicate mosquitoes, should we try to affect human sexual patterns
leading to AIDS, etc. are scientific but also contain a large dose of ethics,
i.e. they cannot be approached by handling equations alone in an objective
matter.

~~~
verysimple
"I think it's a big mistake to see science as deriving, almost mechanically
from observations [...] scientists are affected by non-scientific aspects of
their societies, i.e. traditions, commonly held beliefs, and politics"

It's neither a mistake nor inaccurate. Once you've observed, measured,
calculated and concluded, you can involve all form of non-empirical
disciplines you want, after all we are morally and emotionally bound beings.
One thing we can't do however is hide from the truth the data has spoken.
Those are usually very profound paradigm shifts, a crossroad between being
comfortable with what was revealed, or choosing to be more at peace with one's
oblivion and folkloric truths.

"Some questions, e.g.: should we perform stem cell research on embryos, should
we eradicate mosquitoes, should we try to affect human sexual patterns leading
to AIDS, etc. are scientific [...] i.e. they cannot be approached by handling
equations alone in an objective matter."

If the approach can't be objective then the question isn't scientific.
Granted, those are science related questions and have a dose of moral and
ethics involved, but that's not what science is about.

Science isn't there to answer what you should or shouldn't do. It's there to
provide you with facts on what would happen if you do it. Change your question
_should we eradicate mosquitoes_ into _what would happen if we eradicate
mosquitoes_ and we can talk science. Lets take out the tools, dust off old
books, go in the nature, observe, measure, extrapolate, calculate and
conclude. Then based on those conclusions we'll look at each other and our
moral fiber will tell us, nah we should probably let the little scoundrel be.

------
danielford
In graduate school, I was once tangentially involved in a group conversation
regarding whether or not another grad student was a dick. A few things were
mentioned, and then one of my coworkers said, "Yeah, and he's a republican".
Everyone nodded, the question having been resolved to their satisfaction. I
still remember thinking how ugly that sounded. How out of keeping it was with
the spirit of inquiry that should guide science.

This wasn't an isolated incident. I've watched political debates with
coworkers where I was shocked at the number of emotional outbursts and lack of
charity for the other side. I've had a student complain to me that they
couldn't stand an otherwise good biology professor because of their snide
political comments about conservatives. Do you think that republican student
was more or less likely to go into biology as a result of hearing Bush jokes
once a week?

I'm one of the 32% that are independent, and grant that the republican party
is part of the problem. Having taught evolution, it's completely bizarre to
see republican candidates attempting to weasel around questions about its
validity every election cycle. It's equally bizarre to listen to my republican
parents' evidence-free opinions on climate change and science funding. But the
people here who are trying to pretend that science doesn't occur within a
social context and that the republicans are 100% responsible for this problem
are just as baffling to me.

------
wonderzombie
As others have pointed out, it's funny how this is a problem for Democrats
and/or scientists. Shouldn't _Republicans_ be worried about that? I guess this
presupposes that you believe in all that "scientific method" nonsense as
opposed to, say, Intelligent Design.

I should also point out that, if anything, an inquisitive, questioning turn of
mind would indicate _more_ willingness to explore alternative ideas, not less!
The assumption here appears to be just the opposite: scientists are, for
whatever reason, categorically unwilling or incapable of considering
alternative political ideas. It takes a special kind of chutzpah to suggest
that an entire class of people that disagrees with you is guilty of dishonesty
or shenanigans.

Bonus hilarity: he won't come right out and say it, but this sure does sound
like he's asking for Republican affirmative action in science and
universities. lol, as the kids say.

------
drKarl
I don't see why that should be a problem. There is also a clear correlation
between scientists and religion (or lack of belief).

~~~
araneae
I think he was trying to point out that it's a credibility problem. For
instance, where science aligns with political belief, it makes it harder for
scientists to argue that they're impartial when they generally share the same
political beliefs with eachother.

~~~
jbooth
_where science aligns with political belief_

What if it's more an issue of political belief aligning itself against
science? We've all seen the numbers on which Americans believe the earth is
5,000 years old, right?

~~~
araneae
Well clearly that's problematic too.

~~~
jbooth
I agree, and furthermore I'd say that if the one preceded the other (i.e. the
Republican Party became anti-science first), it's sort of blaming the victim
to say scientists should be more balanced. More balanced with what? We'll
average 5k and 12 billion and posit that the universe is 6 billion + 2500
years old?

------
rbranson
I think this is largely because of the overwhelming number of fundamentalists
in the Republican party. When there are polling figures like 46% of
Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim and 67% believe he's a socialist, this
picture starts to become clear. If you believe something so strongly that your
opinion cannot be changed despite astronomical amounts of evidence to the
contrary, then you will not many friends in science.

------
trotsky
I think the article makes a good point, and the obvious solution is to make a
fair percentage of those conducting research switch party affiliation.

~~~
Trey-Jackson
Ha, funny.

------
Trey-Jackson
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." \- Stephen Colbert

------
scelerat
I'm no scientist, but do place a premium on inquiry, falsifiability, and
rationality in most endeavors. IMO the Republican party is run by people who
are openly theocratic, anti-intellectual, and anti-rational. It is no surprise
to me that so few scientists are registered as Republican. I see this as a
problem for Republicans specifically, and the United States generally. FWIW,
last time I affiliated myself with any party was in 2000, when I was a
Republican.

------
ThomPete
It's interesting. Compared to most of Europe to many people in Europe the
entire political scene in the US looks like a Republican scene.

I fail to see how that is a problem anymore than saying that most people who
work on wall street are republicans.

The actual political position is only relevant in context not from an absolute
point of view.

------
DanielBMarkham
This is a problem, and it really has nothing to do with specific policies or
parties.

Any democracy will evolve into a multi-party system. In the U.S. we've
basically went with two parties, and it looks like we are stuck with it.

So in a two party system, any group that completely affiliates with one party,
either by membership or just tradition, both damages that party and the group
itself.

What I love about politics is that it shows humans at their most irrational:
from the Nobel Laureate to the rocket scientist, when you get them talking
about politics it's the emotional brain first, the logical brain second.
People are like this in all areas of reasoning, it's just politics is the
easiest to observe. So, for instance, watching somebody bullshit themselves
about politics is a pretty good quick and dirty indicator of how they're going
to bullshit themselves about whether or not you need a new server rack.

I don't think every issue naturally has two sides to it, but because politics
is emotion-based and not reason-based, I don't think it matters. There should
be as many scientists roughly in each party. It's a very interesting
observation that there are not. I believe journalism is similarly skewed. So
when story X comes in over the transom from NGO group advocating some cause,
the reporter picks up the phone and consults with several experts. If the odds
hold, everybody in that little scenario is a member of the same party, with
the same prejudices towards how the story should be told.

Not a good thing.

I imagine -- without looking at any other comments on this thread -- that
there will be a lot of "but the scientists are actually _scientifically_
choosing to be Dems, because it's not logical to do otherwise" or perhaps
blaming the Rs for being so bad that no decent scientist would support them.
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about (and probably a good
reason for the post to be considered of dubious merit for HN) It's a shame,
because the larger issue causes all sorts of other problems.

~~~
Jun8
Very well put! What keeps amazing me about US politics is that (as in other
places) there is a small number, n, of top issues, e.g. gay marriage,
abortion, off-shoring work, gun control. I think n~10. Assuming the simplistic
approach that your stance on of these issues are binary valued, there are 2^n
~ 1000 different positions available. Since these are highly correlated, the
real value is much lower than this, though. The thing is: we are trying to
cram all those different stances into _two_ parties! Your vote is in essence
binary valued.

Why should I be shoehorned? I am a gnostic, against excessive off-shoring,
pro-choice, against gun banning and so on. It's a curious mix. Yet, I have to
choose between two packages.

~~~
MichaelSalib
Comments like this sadden me.

There is a field called political science. There are lots of researchers in
that field publishing in journals, attending conferences, writing books, etc.
And they've actually come up with some interesting results. In particular:
voters do not make voting decisions based primarily on issues. In fact,
there's some evidence that the causation often goes the other way.

Any model that starts with the assumption that voters choose candidates based
on issue matching starts with fail.

 _Why should I be shoehorned? I am a gnostic, against excessive off-shoring,
pro-choice, against gun banning and so on. It's a curious mix. Yet, I have to
choose between two packages._

Because the nature of political parties that can function in any society is
heavily dependent on the institutional structure of the government. Again,
this is a question that actual political scientists have researched and
answered.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_voters do not make voting decisions based primarily on issues. In fact,
there's some evidence that the causation often goes the other way._

Interesting, I'd like to read more about this. Can you point me to something
(less than book-length) that would tell me more?

(I'm familiar with _The Myth of the Rational Voter_ thing, but it sounds like
you're going even a step farther than that)

~~~
yummyfajitas
I can't find any direct links, but I'd suggest Robin Hanson's blog
(overcomingbias.com). His hypothesis is that most political/voting activity is
done primarily for the purposes of a sense of identity and signalling. He
discusses this in a number of posts.

His basic thesis: I have no incentive to vote "correctly", since the odds of
my vote affecting the result are nil. Therefore, it costs me almost nothing to
vote D solely to show my friends what a caring intellectual I am, or to feel
good about myself. My hypothesis is that this is the main reason scientists
vote D (the caring/intellectual image).

------
iwr
What does it mean to be a "scientist" in the US? Is it strictly a person in
academia who is in the pursuit of research grants?

Does it also include private sector researchers and engineers?

~~~
hugh3
Private sector scientists, yes. Private sector engineers, no.

Of course it's hard to draw a hard-and-fast line between the two, so let's
just consider scientists as people who would say they're a scientist, and
engineers people who would say that they're an engineer.

------
ramanujan
An interesting question is whether this has always been so. Anecdotally,
scientists like Galton, Fisher, and Pearson were on the right (from today's
perspective, the far right) in their work on the nature/nurture question.

What do historical polls look like? The R/D flip around 1965 will complicate
tracking polls, but it'd be interesting to see the data if it exists...

------
danilocampos
When you've got a party that's tied to a 6000-year-old earth and early man
walking beside dinosaurs, how can anyone with a third grade or higher science
education be excited to join?

The overwhelming sentiment among the Right in the United States is a perverse
anti-intellectualism. Stupidity and lack of education have been enshrined as
the height of authenticity. If you need proof, look at John McCain's running
mate.

No one with a scientific mind can feel welcome among people who are tied to
policies that consider common sense contraception as somehow morally
reprehensible.

