Only 6 Percent of Scientists Are Republican. Is This a Problem?

[SoCalDem]

probably !

.............................

http://www.good.is/post/only-6-percent-of-scientists-are-republican-is-this-a-problem/



Writing in Slate last week, Daniel Sarewitz discusses a 2009 Pew poll that shows only 6 percent of scientists self-identify as Republican. That's compared to the 55 percent who identify as Democrats, 32 percent who identify as independent, and the rest, who "don't know" their affiliation.

It is, he suggests, a problem that needs to be rectified:

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 fact, psychologists have actually been very eager to explore the relationship between political orientation and various personality traits and a lot of that work is relevant to the present discussion. I'm surprised Sarewitz doesn't mention it. This longish piece from Psychology Today provides a pretty good survey of what psychologists have found. Here's the summary:

The most comprehensive review of personality and political orientation to date is a 2003 meta-analysis of 88 prior studies involving 22,000 participants. The researchers—John Jost of NYU, Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland, and Jack Glaser and Frank Sulloway of Berkeley—found that conservatives have a greater desire to reach a decision quickly and stick to it, and are higher on conscientiousness, which includes neatness, orderliness, duty, and rule-following. Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.

snip

[Skittles]

1. the reply says it all

yes INDEED

The reason that scientists are not Republicans is that Republicans are scientifically ignorant and culturally backward. The people who deny climate change, evolution and the Big Bang are Republicans. The people who think that massive tax cuts will balance the budget are Republicans. The people who preach abstinence only are Republicans. Given the complete idiocy of Republicans, I am shocked that they get a full 6% of scientists. They must be the ones who barely passed their classes.

[eridani]

20. Or it indicates that sociopathology affects a minority of people in all occupations n/t

[krispos42]

2. What percentage of Christian holy men are Democrats?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[SwampG8r]

4. that is a more fair question than the science one

matthew defines a pretty democratic view of christianity but its not adhered to by its adherants

[burrowowl]

17. Liberation theologists

and are probably more socialists! Especially given the Dems of today.
To paraphrase Gore Vidal: America has 2 right wings.

[WinkyDink]

29. Do you mean "holy" as in "holy", or "holy" as in "hypocritical"?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

32. wholly uncalled for

on such a holey subject

[SwampG8r]

3. it is only as it defines people by their party affilliation

whether a scientist is a rep or a dem has less importance than their personal integrity in their field
science isnt politics and shouldnt be made so

[RandomThoughts]

5. Does that include social engineering sciences?

That is the bane of society to allow a few people to move it in directions in secret.


As far as integrity first, that is a tough one, integrity can show character, and I understand that, however I have seen many people of low integrity that think perseverance or stubbornness is the same thing as integrity. Or that mix up loyalty for integrity.

Loyalty is rarely integrity. to explain that, sometimes loyalty is supporting a friend even when it is wrong by your beliefs. Integrity can actually be supporting an enemy when he is more right then you, even if it may lose a friend, although best to try and help the friend as much as possible, and if mercy is possible within concepts of justice have that instead of loyalty, but with justice also on an equal system of how you would treat an enemy.

Treating a friend better then an enemy, is a relativistic view of right and wrong, not what you think is right and wrong.

[SwampG8r]

12. yes it should

and by integrity i meant the integrity of the scientific method not personal integrity other than making honest scientific evaluations

[tanyev]

30. I'm curious about the level of integrity you would find in that 6%.

[Duer 157099]

6. imho it is all about dogma

Dogma and the scientific method don't play well together, and if a "conservative" becomes a scientist, they must either shed their dogmatic ways (which translates into flexible open thinking, not acceptable in their cliques) or shed their scientific careers (and become lobbyists or some other money-grubbing scam that fits with their moral values).

imho.

[Anakin Skywalker]

7. These must be the 6% with agendas!

You know, the "creation science" people, etc.

[somone]

8. It also has to do with theoretical vs. applied

I've read somewhere that most "pure" scientists are liberal - especially physicists, while most engineers and people in applied fields are conservative. The explanation given was that the theoretical people deal with first principles and tend to be more open-minded, whereas the applied people are into rote application of rules and tend to be more formulaic and rigid.

Similarly, most economists are liberal, and most accountants are conservative.

[man4allcats]

18. Engineers are frequently to the right of conservative.

About a year ago, PZ Myers posted some comments on his blog regarding an embarrassingly bad talk by Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis, the discoverer of PCR (the polymerase chain reaction). I bookmarked the post not so much because of Myers' comments but rather because of a reply posted by one of the blog's readers. The respondent, BoxNDox, was talking about how the Nobel Prize has a tendency to propel recipients into the status of instant and all knowing authorities on virtually any subject, even subjects on which they might actually be rather uninformed. In addition to the instant "anything authority", he also states that some technical types are just plain cranks. As regards engineers and the crank phenomenon, he states:

"But the other part of the affliction is simply being a crank. Unfortunately this is a phenomenon I'm all too familiar with, because it seems to afflict engineers to a much greater degree than it does scientists, likely because good engineering is more amenable to narrowness of focus than good science is.

Indeed, I've met any number of good, and several great, engineers who are really hard to take because off their crank views. Often as not the object of their "crankiness" is political, and usually, but not always, on the right side of the spectrum. Gun nuts, extreme libertarianism, and various other nonsense seems to go with the territory. There are also a fair number of religious zealots in the mix."


Emphasis mine - m4ac

The experience of the aforementioned BoxNDox with engineers has been my experience with them as well. In fact, I presently work with several engineers who closely fit BoxNDox' description. One in particular is a spot on match. Though technically competent, they are all right-wing Republican neocon, religious fundamentalist jerks. On the other hand, the PhD level biologists it has been my pleasure to work with during better times have almost all been Democrats. I have only known one who was a Republican, and even he was sensible, unlike the engineers of my current acquaintance.

[davidinalameda]

9. I'm more concerned with the ones that "don't know"

how can they not know?

[IntravenousDemilo]

15. Perhaps they're experimenting before reaching conclusions. They do that, you know. n/m

[PurityOfEssence]

16. "Not knowing" is one of the core traits of the scientific personality

An awareness of personal limitations and a willingness to live in a world with grey areas is part of the mindset; the craving for certainty is the stuff of conservatism and religious faith. These are broad strokes, but pretty clear tendencies.

[Taitertots]

23. Because they are not afraid to admit that they don't know the answers

Issues relating to public policy are complex and multivariate.

I'm more concerned by the huge numbers of people who are ignorant but pretend they know the answers, also known as Republicans.

[Tesha]

27. They may also have answered (or wanted to answer) with something that didn't fit the survey.

For example, "Democratic Socialist" or "Green". I would find "Independent"
an unsatisfactory alternative answer.

Tesha

[MrModerate]

10. Psycho-biological approaches are one way to look at this . . .

But I'd say the predominant explanation is cultural. (Warning, broad-brush generalizations ahead!)

Republicanism (at least today's whack-job zealotry version) is anti-intellectual in its bias. Religion -- despite ardent attempts to coexist with rationalism -- is anti-intellectual. Resentment against "elites" is anti-intellectual. Creationism and Intelligent Design -- protective coloration nothwithstanding -- are anti-intellectual.

There are so many strikes against people of a scientific bent succeeding in 'Lican families, or 'Lican families nurturing people of a scientific bent that the numbers quoted above, while shocking, are not surprising at all.

And it's sad, scary, and depressing.

On the upside, even with waves of religiosity periodically running through the younger demographic, over time the supernatural explanation of the universe (vampires and angels being the exception that proves the rule) is losing out among young people. Disappointing back steps notwithstanding, the future belongs to the rational.

[JCMach1]

11. Republicanism is not a reality based political philosophy... hence, no scientists

[Ernesto]

14. I'll drink to that!........... nt

[Ernesto]

13. "Is This a Problem?"

Are you nuts?
I've always known that repukes have to deal with substantial mental obstacles.
On the other hand,I think it's just great that the facts that are provided indicate that very smart people are NOT conservatives.

Thank heaven or somethin'!

[eShirl]

19. The kind of scientist who would take a job with Monsanto. n/t

[gtar100]

21. But republicans are intensely interested in holding power at all costs.

And in that they succeed to all our detriment. So is there a scientific solution to minizing the sociopaths in a population yet? And can the solution be administered in time to cure our planet of the self-destructive nature of right-wing ideology/republicanism/corporatism?

[Fumesucker]

22. Yes, it's a huge problem..

Why are six percent of scientists members of a party that is explicitly and rabidly anti-science?

From global climate change to stem cell research to the drug war, Republicans are 100% against following the findings of science (in the interests of honesty, Democrats also refuse to follow scientific research when it comes to the drug war).

I guess it goes to show that even scientists can be fooled by slick talking hucksters.

[stuntcat]

25. +1

word for word ditto

[notesdev]

24. This is easy to figure out

if you're as cynical as I am, anyway

Republicans don't vote for expansion of academia's research budgets (unless they are military related). Democrats do.

Scientists vote their pocketbooks just like everyone else.

[mmonk]

26. It's more a statement than a problem.

I'd rather have people that took science more seriously than a political dogma primarily based on corporations should have no regulations.

[WinkyDink]

28. Yes, the problem is that 6% is too many.

[GoCubsGo]

31. I's all about the paycheck and fear.

While the last paragraph in the OP is quite correct, it misses one blaringly obvious point: Most scientists don't get paid anywhere near what they pay on Wall St., in banking, in accounting, etc. So, of course members of the money-grubbing party don't go into the sciences. They go where they can make the most money. It's rare that anyone gets rich from a career in the sciences. Those of us in the sciences don't go into them for the money.

On top of that, they're a bunch of bed-wetting pussies. My field is the environmental sciences. Working in that field often involves going into isolated places that have scary, scary things like snakes and bugs and mud and spiny plants. Every time someone would say to me, "I could never do your job." (my former job, as I have none at the moment), it is ALWAYS a right-winger. They are afraid of snakes and spiders and being in the wilderness, just like they're afraid of brown people, gays, atheists and everything else. AND, you tend to get dirty. Can't have that.

[11 Bravo]

33. Further confirmation of natural selection (althought the fact that Limbaugh requires ...

chemical assistance in order to engage in any act of possible procreation was already proof enough for me.)

[Motown_Johnny]

35. he may have just been making sure he got his moneys worth

[Motown_Johnny]

34. So, 6% of Scientists have decided they went into the wrong profession

all that evidence and fact stuff.....

[dembotoz]

36. THIS IS IMPORTANT

too often in debate over things factual rethubs are given credence by media and in the gen public
that they actually have some idea of what the hell they are babbling about.
Their feet are not held to the fire.

too often they just make shit up and we let them

we let them



Scientific tidbit for the day???

the earth is not flat.

[felix_numinous]

37. Pandering to the religious right

has a tendency to repel scientists for some strange reason. Let's study that.

[fascisthunter]

38. republicans have a very hard time dealing with FACTS

and using their brains to figure shit out LONG TERM

[Joanne98]

39. It's the creation/evolution debate. The fundies have chased the scientists out of the party.

Slate is becoming so right-wing I never even read it anymore. If it's a "problem" for Slate they need to start bashing fundies since they created the problem.

[old mark]

40. We must work harder to make education available to all, regardless

of political orientation, and to end discrimination against republicans in science! ;)


mark

[mike_c]

41. as an academic scientist who deals with a wide variety of students...

...I can tell you that my gut feeling-- and I emphasize that this is entirely anecdotal, with no other evidence at all-- but in my biology and ecology classes the students who I perceive to be most conservative, based on their comments about other topics, general presentation, etc, are often the most dogmatic, the students who want definitive answers rather than ideas to think about. They are the least likely to accept relativist arguments on any topic.

Science is a living pursuit. It changes daily, evolving and growing. Explanations that were acceptable yesterday become disproven in an instant when contrary data emerges. Science is creative. It seeks solutions to puzzles. My impression of most SMART conservatives that I've known is that they want answers that don't change and grow. They want facts that have permanence rather than ideas that are malleable and adaptive.

Real science tends not to attract folks with that authoritarian mindset. Notwithstanding the authoritarian tendency we all bring to undergrad classrooms on occasion, effective scientists ALWAYS recognize that what they know is incomplete and ephemeral. Once truth becomes dogma, even if appropriately, science has no real place in the world any longer. Science doesn't simply catalog the natural universe, it seeks to understand it without imposing prior conditions (except possibly as a means of testing those prior assumptions). This seems so different from the typical conservative approach of clinging to absolute truths.